The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI)

Extended version of: Lucadou, W.v. (2015):The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI). In: Edwin C. May & Sonali Marwaha (eds.). Extrasensory Perception: Support, Skepticism, and Science: Vol. 2: Theories and the Future of the Field. Praeger publications, Santa Barbara, USA, Ca., pp.221-242. .

Walter von Lucadou

The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) Summary The article describes the Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI). The model starts from a system-theoretic viewpoint and uses concepts like complementarity and entanglement of generalized quantum theory (GQT). In contrast to the usual observational theories (OT) the model does not start at the description level of quantum theory (QT). Therefore, there is no need to solve the mind-brain problem in order to implement psychological concepts. From the fundamental complementarity of structure and function an uncertainty relation can be derived. This can further be applied to the concept of pragmatic information leading to the fundamental equation: I = R * A = B * E = n * i this equation describes the partitioning (product) of reliability R and autonomy A of an organizationally closed system which interacts with its environment by the exchange of pragmatic information I. This exchange can be called an observation. B describes the "confirmation" and E the "novelty" of the pragmatic information in the environmental system, i is the minimum action that the pragmatic information exerts on the specified system during an observation or measurement. Only self-organizing systems can become organizationally closed. In macroscopic systems this requires a certain degree of complexity and informational exchange inside the self-referential system. The internal entanglementcorrelations within are non-local in nature and can be distinguished from causal correlations. It is assumed that psi effects are manifestations of such entanglement correlations. However, they cannot be used as a carrier of signals, which causes severe limitations on every psi effect (Non Transition, NT-axiom). Any operationalization, which would use the non-local correlation as a potential signal transfer, would make the correlation vanish. Thus, the model proposes two laws: 1. Psi phenomena are non-local entanglement-correlations in socio-psycho-physical, self-organizing, organizationally closed systems, which are induced by the pragmatic information, which creates the system. 2. Any attempt to use a non-local entanglement-correlation as a signal transfer makes the correlation vanish or change the effect in an unpredictable way.

Keywords Cartesian cut, elusiveness, entanglement, entanglement-perception, exo-endo-distinction, General Quantum Theory (GQT), Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI), nonseparability, NT-axiom, Observational Theories (OT), poltergeist-phenomena, pseudo-machines, pseudo-signals, Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis (RSPK). 1 Introduction Since the Geneva conference on "Quantum Physics and Parapsychology" in 1974 (Oteri 1975), a new area of theoretical parapsychology has developed. This does not mean, however, that there were no theoretical approaches beforehand, which would not be worthwhile to be considered as a useful model for psi phenomena. But most of these hypotheses were proposed by some individual scientists without causing a general discussion that led to the development of research programs. In the case of the so called observational theories, several different scientists have contributed different approaches which, however, share a common starting point and which can be compared in relation to different experimental predictions. This basic starting point of the observational theories can be seen in an alleged isomorphism between the structure of quantum phenomena and psi phenomena. This isomorphism is mainly seen in the non-locality of the wave function and the seemingly independence of space and time in psi phenomena. Another aspect of this isomorphism is the role of a measurement in quantum theory and the role of an observer in parapsychology. The basic difference of the model of pragmatic information (MPI) to the other candidates of observational theories (OT) is that it does in fact not start at the level of quantum theory but on a very general level of systems theory. This means that it does not say anything about the substratum of the psi phenomena nor does it entangle the problem of reductionism (Kornwachs, Lucadou 1985). The advantage of system theory is that it can be applied to psychological problems as well as to physical problems simply by the fact that it does not 1

say anything about the underlying substratum but only deals with the structure of our description language and the way we are representing and mapping information we can get from experiments on this descriptive language. The process of operationalization and interpretation describes the interface between the "real world" (whatever this may be) and our description of it. 2 Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) and Generalized Quantum Theory (GQT) The very basic assumption of the model says that any description of nature must have a structure, which is isomorphic to the axiomatic structure of quantum theory. There are several arguments for this basic assumption. The simplest would be that QT is the most successful basic description language of natural systems and hitherto no indications were found that the axioms of QT have failed. Further, they hold from microscopic to macroscopic and even cosmological dimensions and also to any sort of physical observables regardless which special field (electromagnetism, elementary particles, solid state physics etc.) is considered. Furthermore it can be shown that these axioms describe in a very general way how information under the categories of space and time can be obtained from any system when the interaction of the "measurement process" cannot be neglected. However, this does not necessarily imply that we can transpose without further assumptions the detailed structure of a special quantum physical system to another field as it is done in OTs and in some reductionistic models (Walker 1975, 1979, Hammerhoff 1994). There are at least two candidates of theoretical models which start from this very fundamental level and which can also be applied in normal psychology. They are called Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) and Generalized Quantum Theory (GQT). Both models are not completely independent and can be united and describe somewhat different aspects of the matter. The initial Idea of GQT was described by the author in 1972 (Lucadou 1974, 1991a,b, 1998). A mathematical formulation of GQT was given by Hartmann Römer, Harald Atmannspacher and Harald Walach in 2002 (Walach, Römer 2000, Atmanpacher, Römer, Walach 2002, Filk, Römer 2010). In Generalized Quantum Theory, the fundamental notions of system, state and observable are taken over from ordinary quantum theory: A system is any part of reality in the most general sense, which can, at least in principle, be isolated from the rest of the world and be the object of an investigation. A system is assumed to have the capacity to reside in different states. The notion of state also has an epistemic side, reflecting the degree of knowledge an observer has about the system. Unlike in ordinary quantum mechanics, the set Z of states is not assumed to have necessarily an underlying linear Hilbert space structure. An observable A of a system is any feature of which can be investigated in a (more or less) meaningful way. Let A denote the set of observables. Just like in ordinary quantum mechanics, observables A ∈ A can be identified with functions on the set of states: Any observable A associates to every state z ∈ Z another state A(z) ∈ Z. As functions on the set of states, observables A and B can be composed by applying A after B. The composed map AB defined as AB(z) = A(B(z)) is also assumed to be an observable. Observables A and B 2

are called compatible or commensurable if they commute, i.e. if AB = BA. Noncommuting observables with AB BA are called complementary or incompatible. In ordinary quantum theory, observables can also be added, multiplied by complex numbers and conjugated, and the set of observables is endowed with a rich structure called C*-algebra structure. In GQT, observables can only be multiplied by the above composition. This gives the set of observables a much simpler so-called semigroup structure. In (Atmanspacher, Römer, Walach 2002), Generalized Quantum Theory is characterized by a list of axioms. The most important aspect of the MPI (Lucadou 1984, 1987, 1998, 1995, 2001, 2002d; Kornwachs, Lucadou 1985) is the so-called “NT-axiom” (Lucadou, Römer, Walach 2007). It assumes that the origin of psi-phenomena are not signals, but entanglement correlations, which are created by the “meaning” (pragmatic information) of the situation. Further MPI and GQT assume that these entanglement correlations cannot be used as signal transfers or causal influences. This axiom leads to a naturalistic explanation of the decline-effect and the displacement-effect (Lucadou 1983, 1989, 2000b, 2001) and to the temporal development of RSPK-phenomena (Lucadou, Zahradnik 2004). In (Lucadou, Römer, Walach 2007) it is argued that the MPI is a subclass of the GQT. In agreement with GQT the MPI assumes that structure S and function F of a system are complementary observables. Formally we can write that the commutator [S*F - F*S] ≠ 0 or S*F ≠ F*S

(1)

Which means that we will get different results in a measurement if we first measure the structure and then the function or vice verse (the character * means product). To any biologist who wants to investigate the behaviour (function) or the anatomy (structure) of an animal, this statement sounds trivial. The key concepts in the MPI are: pragmatic information, novelty, confirmation, autonomy, reliability, temporal dimensionality, and minimum action. • • • • • • •

Pragmatic information (I): The meaning of a given information measured by its action on a system. Novelty (E): Aspect of pragmatic information which is completely new for the receiving system. Confirmation (B): Aspect of pragmatic information which is already known by the receiving system. Autonomy (A): Behavior of a system which cannot be predicted. Reliability (R): Behavior of a system which is expected. Temporal dimensionality (D): Measure for the interrelationship of temporal events that belong to a history. Minimum action (i): Smallest amount of action on a system which cannot be avoided during a measurement or observation.

The concept of pragmatic information has been developed to quantify the meaning of given information. It is assumed that the (potential) action that meaningful information exerts on a system can be used for such quantification. E.U. von Weizsäcker (1974)1 proposed that pragmatic information could be written as a product of two observables which he called "Erstmaligkeit" E (novelty) and "Bestätigung" B (confirmation)2:

1

In the meantime von Weizäcker’s idea of pragmatic ibformation has got an increasing influence in many fields as the whole issue of the Journal „Mind and Matter“ Volume 4, Issue 2, 2006 demonstrates. 2 Some critics of the MPI maintained that the concepts of the model are too vague and do not allow operationalization and falsification. Several experimental studies (Lucadou 1986, 1993, 1994, 2006), however, demonstrate how this can be performed in detail.

3

I = E * B; I = f(C; C/ t)

(2)

This approach takes into account that each piece of meaningful information must contain a certain pre-structure (confirmation) - for instance, ones native language - in order to be understood by the (receiving) system but also something new in order to produce a change C in the receiving system. For instance, a joke in a foreign language which cannot be understood would not cause anybody to laugh (no confirmation), and a joke of yesterday would not do so either (no novelty). This includes the idea that pragmatic information is not a static but a highly dynamic process. The changes in the system are measured in terms of changes of complexity C/ t of the system (Kornwachs, Lucadou 1975). The model further assumes that there exists a minimum amount of pragmatic information (or action) i which has to be exchanged if an informational exchange (measurement) with another system takes place. This is simply another formulation of the inevitable interaction in a measurement. A concept to describe the boundaries of natural systems was introduced by Maturana and Varela (1981) and is called "organizational closure". Varela states: "An organizationally closed unity is defined as a composite unity by a network of interactions of components that (i) through their interactions recursively generate the network of interactions that produce them, and (ii) realize the network as a unity in the space in which the components exist by constituting and specifying the unity's boundaries as a cleavage from the background." It is interesting to remark that the concept of organizational closure makes no sense from inside of the (sub-) system. A necessary condition of organizational closure is the self-organization of the system and a consequence that organizational closure is a self-stabilizing property (conservation of entanglement, see chapter 9). The most important difference between a psi experiment and an experiment in other fields of science is that due to the definition of psi the "normal causal" links between subject and target has to be ruled out, whereas in "normal" science the structure of such "normal causal" links is investigated. Of course, this definition is highly problematic but it seems that most researchers in the field are beginning to share a common minimum consensus that psi effects could positively be defined as "meaningful non-local entanglement correlations" between a living system and other (causally) separated systems (Lucadou 1984, 1991b). Entanglement correlations are pattern matches within organizational closed systems measured from outside of the system and which are created by the relevant pragmatic information. The term non-locality / non-local means that an observable does not explicitly depend on time and distance (e.g. the importance of a personal relationship). Thus, one could redefine parapsychology as the investigation of "non-local effects in entangled living systems". The term "non-local", however, is not just a new word for "psi" but has a quite definite meaning in the context of the axiomatic structure of GQT. It is important to notice that "non-locality" is nothing principally different from all the other physical interactions. But to isolate it for investigations causal interactions have to be ruled out. In physics entanglement can be considered as a more or less well established fact, however, most researchers doubt that it may play a role in living systems. If PK can be regarded as something "exceptional", within MPI this means novelty E. This is especially the case in spontaneous cases were psi events normally occur unexpected. We can also say that the pragmatic information that describes the entanglement correlation is mainly represented by novelty E. Implicitly this means that there is not much confirmation B present. Since, due to equation (2) pragmatic information is the product of novelty E and 4

confirmation B the same amount of pragmatic information can be expressed either as much novelty and less confirmation or vice versa. However, if the total amount of pragmatic information is limited it follows immediately that events containing much novelty E (unexpected events) cannot occur very often, which would mean very much confirmation B. 3 Decline Effects Above we said that the partitioning of pragmatic information into novelty and confirmation, depends on the measurement we apply to get the information I from the system. Thus, the experimental conditions mainly determine whether we get mainly novelty or confirmation or both from our organizationally closed system. Assuming we could perform two PK experiments where all conditions except the run length could be kept equal, (practically this would of course be very difficult) and assuming further that the Z-score of our PK experiments is a good measure for the PK correlation then we could conclude that the hit rate ES depends from the run length (n) in the following way: ES(n) = c / √(n)

(3)

This means that the accumulated deviation from the statistical expectation of the run must decline with the run length. Here we have made the assumption that the Z-score is a meaningful measure for the psi effect which means that it is used as criterion for the subject to signal the success of fulfilling the experimental instruction. Other criteria then the Z-score would of course yield different functional dependences in equation (3). A recent meta analysis of 357 PK experiments (Bösch et al. 2006) corroborates this prediction. The funnel-plot shows an overwhelming evidence for the decline of the effect size with number of trials (c = 1,32 gives a good approximation). If the MPI model is taken into account by a weight of √n in the statistical analysis of the above-mentioned meta-analysis, then, the data show a highly significant effect (p Zcrit, Z means Z-score) is fulfilled it is decided by a "preinspector" (for instance by a computer) that the random sequence (S) will not be used for the subject. This is of course paradoxical because the operator will not be able to exert an influence E on the sequence, which however, was the reason for the selection. The MPI makes the assumption that nature does not allow (intervention) paradoxes. This holds even for classical systems, where a “time-traveller” is not allowed to kill his grandfather5. However, in GQT this statement is much more strict and powerful: Situations in which the “time-traveller” could potentially kill his grandfather do not occur! This is the “Second law of the MPI”: Any attempt to use a non-local correlation as a signal transfer makes the non-local correlation vanish or change the effect in an unpredictable way (e.g. the effect may show up in a different variable, which was not in consideration beforehand, known as “displacement-effect”). This limiting principle is a result of the NT-axiom (NT = Non Transmission) (Lucadou, Römer, Walach 2007): In QT it can be proven that entanglement correlations cannot be used for any signal transfer or causal link. In general systems this has to be accepted as an axiom. It can be concluded that natural systems themselves may produce larger fluctuations if they are not observed. (In quantum physics this is known as “Quantum-Zeno-effect”: “An observed pot never boils” (Atmanspacher, Filk, Römer 2004)). It is a fundamental 4

The recovery-effect and its contrary, the Meta-Analysis-Demolition MAD-effect (Houtkooper 1994) which describes the failure of replication after a meta-analysis, cannot be understood by the FEM and the IDS-model unless some ad hoc assumptions about psychological factors are made. 5 This is also a limitation which may also be important for the IDS-model (May et. al. 1995).

7

assumption of the model of pragmatic information that observation and also negative-resultobservation (Renninger 1960) are different preparations of the system. This idea can also be found in folkloristic reports that spooky events seem to happen at unobserved places, for instance, abandoned houses crumble more rapidly than inhabited ones. 5 How large can Psi-Effects become? The question arises why spontaneous paranormal experiences seem to be much more impressive and larger than the very small (yet highly significant) deviations which can be obtained in experiments (Lucadou 2000b, 2001). The concept of Haussdorf-dimension of paranormal events and developments (Lucadou 2000a) may give an answer. It takes into account, that paranormal experiences are embedded in “live events”, which have their “history”, whereas experimental trials do not show temporal correlations to previous and later events – simply due to the fact, that pure random events are used as targets. Normally natural timely ordered events (for instance a random sequence) cannot be "enlarged" like a film in slow motion. However this becomes possible to some extend if one does not consider singular events themselves but their transition matrices. Random events are single events which are isolated in space-time, they have no history. This is not the case with any biological system. Their main property is development and they create histories (see chapter 11). History means - statistically speaking - that events are correlated among each other. At least one PK-experiment (Lucadou 1986) has clearly demonstrated that correlated random events (Markov-chains) as PK-target yield stronger psycho-physical effects. Starting from this idea, a measure for the "historical meaning" of events was developed. It is called "dimensionality of temporal events" or "temporal dimensionality" (D). Mathematically, it is defined as a "Hausdorff-dimension" of a fractal structure in time. Similar to the geometrical case the Hausdorff-dimension for temporal events tells us, how many temporal sub-elements are needed to create a new "enlarged" unity, which creates a history. This means, that the transition matrix Mi,j e.g. of a Markov-sequence is "compared" with the transition matrix M0 of a random sequence (for details see Lucadou 2000a). A possible interpretation of the definition of D is that every singular event is not an independent event which counts for its own value, but is only a "partial" event. For a normal binary random sequence D = 1, and each "singular event" is independent. Thus one could also say that a singular event in a sequence with D > 1 is only "a fractal part (namely 1/D) of an event". If such a sequence is target of a psi effect, obviously such "partial events" do not fully contribute to the limitations which are induced by the second law. Therefore we can reformulate the limiting formula (3) in the simplest case by the following expression: H = c/√(n/D); D = D(n)

(4)

If D is large enough, quite large effect-sizes may occur.

8

In principle this can be applied for experiments. First of all, it seems not useful to work with "ideal" REGs anymore. One could speculate whether the decline-effect observed in meta-analyses may partly be a result of using increasingly "better" REGs. Of course one has to avoid statistical artefacts. A possible solution of this problem could be the use of Markov-REGs. A further experimental requirement from our consideration is that very long runs are not really helpful because due to the limiting relations the psi-effect would be blurred out. This could also be part of the observed decline, especially in PK-research, where the run length has become abundantly large during the last decade (see Lucadou 2001 and chapter 3). If we have a normal binary random sequence the psi-effect has - so to say - no "workingsurface" or in computer terms no "user-surface". In contrast to PK-experiments, homoeopathic treatments, for instance, have a large working-surface or an effective usersurface. The "therapeutic ritual" has a high dimensionality D, at least as far it is not "blinded out" by double-blind conditions (see chapter 7). One could also say that dependent singular events are better targets for non-local effects. Further it is to be expected that the first singular events show the highest effect-size. This could give a natural explanation for the fact that spontaneous psi-events (SPE and RSPK) seem to have a much higher effect-size than experimental events. Everyday life-events and especially SPE and RSPK are normally dependent events, which are part of long, complicated and interwoven (personal) histories such that “psi” has "enough possibilities to link with". Further, the limiting laws do not apply because the events are spontaneous, or of short duration, or of poor documentation quality, and mainly elusive (see Lucadou 1983, 1989, 2000b). 6 Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis (RSPK) We have also applied the MPI in a qualitative way to the description of RSPK cases. In this case, we have to start with equation (2), which describes the system from "outside" (exo-perspective, see chapter 8). The anomalous RSPK phenomena contain mainly novelty E and little confirmation B. From “inside” (endo-perspective) the system is described by the complementary concepts “autonomy” A and “reliability” R. The dynamics of RSPK is described as the dynamics of pragmatic information within a hierarchically nested system, which is created by the persons inside the system (focus person, naïve observers) and the reaction of critical observers and the society who describe the system from “outside” (Fig. 1). The change of “gestalt” which occurs in RSPK-cases if the RSPK-phenomena are observed from “inside” or from “outside” of a certain systemic description level is given by equation (5), which governs the dynamic of RSPK cases: I=R*A=B*E

(5)

The hierarchical model of the MPI can be applied in quite different situations and contexts because it only deals with the flow and exchange of pragmatic information and its dynamical development. It could be applied in a general way for all types of “embodiment disorders” (Lucadou, Wald 2014) such as “bewitchment” (Lucadou 2003) and “Complex Environmental Reactions (CER)” (Lucadou 2012) and finally to the dynamics of scientific evidence (Lucadou 2001, see also chapter 11).

9

RSPK-phenomena are considered as a kind of “externalized psycho-somatic” reaction, expressing a hidden problem, which cannot be recognized by the persons concerned. One could primarily consider the focus person and his or her environment (the "focus system") as an organizational closure but the interactions with, for instance, the family or other "observers" and finally with the whole social environment are so strong that the boundary of the organizational closure is always changing. In equation (5) the left hand side of autonomy A and reliability R describes RSPK phenomena in the focus system. A PK phenomenon can be understood as a mark of the autonomy A of the focus system. The recurrence of the phenomenon is a mark of the reliability R of the focus system. Any interaction of this system with other "observers" must be described as an exchange of pragmatic information I. However, not only the focus system is delivering pragmatic information but also the observers "produce" pragmatic information which manipulates the focus system for instance by their expectations. For instance, if these "observers" would "expect" more confirmation B of the focus system for a specific "surprising" phenomenon x, such that the product E(x) * B(x) would exceed the product I = A * R (according to equation (5)) the phenomenon may produce a displacement in such a way that something else x' than expected happens for which E(x') * B(x') = A * R holds.

Fig. 1 Hierarchical poltergeist model It represents a simplified model for poltergeist cases, a hierarchically interconnected system of organizationally closed subsystems. Each of these exchanges pragmatic (= meaningful) information with its enclosed subsystem. The different hierarchically nested subsystems describe the path of the RSPK-action which is exerted by the focus person to different observers and finally to the society. Its pragmatic information, however, flows in both directions, because each observer and the society are also “preparing“ the observed system. This can also be described in a formal way: The following equation can be considered as the fundamental description of the RSPK system: R * A = B * E = B' * E' < I. R is a measure for the “reliability” of the observed phenomena; A is a measure for the “autonomy” of the RSPK-system; B is a measure for the “confirmation” (Bestätigung), which is given by an observation; E is a measure for the “novelty” (Erstmaligkeit) of an observation. This fundamental equation describes the action of given pragmatic information on a system. Since R and A or B and E are corresponding pairs of complementary observables nothing can be said on a partitioning of an outside pragmatic information I to reliability R and autonomy A "inside" of the system without further specifying the "measurement". From the equation one can conclude that any piece of pragmatic information I which interacts with a system also produces pragmatic information, but with a new partitioning of novelty E’ and confirmation B’ which can be interpreted as the "reaction" of the (sub-) system. Therefore, it is an important question to specify the subsystem - or to be more precise - the boundary of the subsystem. The four phases of RSK emerge from the dynamics of the partitioning of E and B.

Thus the model of pragmatic information (MPI) leads to several predictions concerning RSPK-phenomena. The first prediction is that RSPK phenomena show two clusters of phenomena, which can be considered as structural and functional anomalous RSPKphenomena. Indeed (Huesmann, Schriever 1989) could corroborate this prediction in the statistical (cluster-) analysis of 54 RSPK cases.

10

The second prediction is that the development of RSPK cases contains four phases, which are called “surprise phase”, “displacement phase”, “decline phase”, and “suppression phase”. In the surprise phase the RSPK-activity starts rapidly with strong effects, but they are not attributed to the focus person. This happens in the displacementphase where the phenomena usually change in an unpredictable way. In the declinephase the “message of the poltergeist” is understood and the phenomena are expected, therefore the phenomena disappear. The final suppression phase can be understood as a kind of reaction of the society. Caroline Watt and Ian Tierney (2013) tried to test some of these predictions empirically by a waiting list technique. Due to insufficient number of cases, however, no clear results could be obtained. The third prediction is that observers can control the RSPK activity by their observation or documentation. This is the result of a kind of “uncertainty relation” of the MPI, which says that the effect-size of the phenomena is limited by the quality of their documentation (6). This also holds for so-called sitter-group experiments (see chapter 7). The fourth prediction is that we have to expect two types of RSPK cases, which we called the active RSPK case and the passive, respectively (Lucadou, Zahradnik 2004). The concepts describe how persons involved cope with the RSPK phenomena. Of course, the coping-strategies of the persons include “system control”. System control describes how an organizational closed system controls itself by interaction with the environment. In the active case the focus person serves as the “master” part of the control-cycle and the environment as a “slave”. In the passive case it is just the other way round. The focus person is not able to control anything and is not able any more to stabilize his or her world. The active focus person in contrast is even over-controlling his or her environment, which leads to macroscopic random fluctuations i.e. RSPK phenomena. We assume here that everybody under normal circumstances subconsciously controls his or her environment to stabilize it. This means that random fluctuations, which are too large, are suppressed. This can be seen, for instance, in the sitter-group experiments and in many PK experiments with subjects who do not get deviations from chance but instead a smaller variance. From this point of view it could be assumed that in a case of depression the person loses more and more the control on the organizational closed environment, which shows up in fluctuations within this environment. This means that the integrative power which keep the whole system together, cannot suppress individual fluctuations within the system with may destroy the system. In this case it is expected that this will occur only in a certain period before the whole system dies out. In such cases we have no real displacement phase but only a decline phase and even the suppression phase is not necessary. The decline phase is not driven by the attempt to produce the phenomena but simply by exhaustion. Therefore the active RSPK case can be considered as an immune reaction of the whole system caused by an unconscious problem, which acts like a “virus”, where as the passive RSPK case must be considered as a disease, which leads to disintegration of the system. In clinical terms, the active RSPK can be considered as a phenomenon of dissociation whilst the passive RSPK phenomena show the phenomena of depression and degeneration. This fits exactly with the assumption of the MPI that psi phenomena correlate with the temporal change of complexity and not with complexity itself (2). 11

For the investigation of RSPK cases the MPI allows the formulation of a kind of macroscopic uncertainty relation: With RSPK it is by no means possible to decide whether the phenomena are produced by (unconscious) manipulation of PK. However, this feature of elusiveness also shows up with many qualitative experiments in parapsychology. 7 Qualitative Psi-Experiments It seems logical to extend the findings of the MPI across the limits of experimental psi effect or poltergeist phenomena, into other situations dealing with qualitative macropsychokinesis. In so doing, we find that the model need not even be afraid of the darkened rooms in the era of physical mediums. Moreover, we can find that another prediction of the MPI can be tested empirically, namely a kind of “uncertainty relation” between the “effect-size of the phenomena” and the “quality of their documentation”: Effect-Size of a psi Phenomenon * Quality of its Documentation < I

(6)

According to the MPI this equation holds for all types (experimental, RSPK, sitter group) of genuine psi effects. However, in general it is very difficult to distinguish between its common psychological interpretation and the systemic interpretation of the MPI. Fortunately, in a single case of a sitter-group experiment this important distinction could be demonstrated. (It goes without saying that further research is required. However, in the practice of the Parapsychological Counseling Office in Freiburg this theoretical model is used in dozens of cases with remarkable success (Lucadou, Wald 2014). The English psychologist Ken Batcheldor (1979) developed a psychological model, which might explain why the phenomena observed by a group of sitters are so much stronger than the results of experiments with single subjects. Batcheldor's model suggests two inhibiting factors, which generally stop people from exerting their psychokinetic abilities. The first of these is “ownership resistance”, the fear of possessing psychokinetic powers. The second factor is “witness inhibition”, the fear of witnessing a paranormal phenomenon. Batcheldor assumed that even if people are not aware of these fears, they can even play a role, which means that if someone is convinced he is not bothered by any of them they may be subconsciously active. Even parapsychologists suffer from these fears, let alone skeptics. It seems quite obvious that such a psychoanalytically oriented characteristic leads to the danger of self-immunization (a non-falsifiable hypothesis), particularly if it is used to explain the absence of an effect. The main aim of Batcheldor's model was to investigate under what circumstances both defense mechanisms could be switched off. According to his numerous experiences one of the best conditions is the technique of the sitter group, since it resembles the classical mediumistic séance, though often without a professional medium and not necessarily using the ideology of spiritualism. According to Batcheldor, this technique relieves each of the sitters from the burden of personal responsibility for the phenomena. Each sitter can always feel himself a relatively uninvolved observer. In other words, it is not he or she, but the other sitters who produce the phenomena. Furthermore, the possibilities of observing effects in a group are in no way as good as many tend to believe. After all, the sitters are expected to create a relaxed and jolly atmosphere. This is especially so for séances in darkness or under red light. In many cases a trickster is elected beforehand, to simulate "phenomena" and trigger off the real thing. Needless to say, this sounds somewhat suspicious. On the other hand, it can help to reduce witness inhibition among other participants, because they do not know for certain whether they are seeing only a trick or 12

a paranormal phenomenon. It will be clear that the experimental setup should nevertheless offer the opportunity of distinguishing tricks from real phenomena. From a psychological point of view, it is very interesting to note that spiritualistic ideology, too, can contribute to the elimination of psychological defense mechanisms. If the sitters are convinced that spirits of the deceased produce the phenomena, they do not feel responsible for these phenomena and their origin. This resembles spontaneous paranormal cases, where the alleged spirits and demons can serve to suppress the real problems. One can even combine Batcheldor's technique of the sitter group with an experimentally produced spiritualistic tale, to yield fantastic results. A group around the Canadian parapsychologist Iris Owen did such an experiment, in which the sitters deliberately "constructed" an artificial spirit. To do so, they invented the tragic-romantic story of an English squire by the name of Philip, who lived in the middle of the 17th century. The details of the story were carefully elaborated. At the same time, however, the group took great care to prevent a resemblance to any existing historical entity. The fictitious squire Philip fell in love with the beautiful gypsy girl Margo, but could not face the consequences of this romance, and finally committed suicide. Since then, he has been a spirit, and was conjured up during the Canadian pseudo-spiritualistic séance. And indeed, he came into being, produced rapping sounds in the table and finally demonstrated the whole spectrum of spiritualistic manifestations. The complete experiment has been described in an interesting book "Conjuring up Philip" by Iris Owen and Margaret Sparrow (1976). The book clearly demonstrates that spiritualistic phenomena can also be produced by invented "pseudo-spirits". In this respect, it is an impressive illustration of Batcheldor's model. On the other hand, there are observations, which do not readily fit into Batcheldor's model, which holds mainly psychological factors responsible for the elusiveness of the phenomena in the era of physical mediums. If only psychological factors could be held responsible for the avoidance of a paranormal phenomenon, it would suffice to eliminate these factors. Indeed, many parapsychologists argue that the elusiveness of the phenomena is only an "irritating by-product" of unfavorable psychological conditions, which should be eliminated. Even after many years of effort, Batcheldor could not lay his hand on a single video recording of a paranormal phenomenon. In a letter to the author, Batcheldor (1985) described a typical situation: "During an experiment we had switched on the infrared video camera when the table levitated. Although we thought the video recorder was running, we did not feel inhibited and I believed we had achieved a success. When we played back the tape, however, it did not contain any images at all! We found out that a switch had been in a wrong position. The next time I carefully checked the position of all switches and, indeed, the table refused to levitate. So would it be possible, though difficult according to your theory, to acquire a detailed video recording of a levitation?" According to the MPI, we should indeed assume that the psi effect remains elusive even when the psychological barricades have been eliminated, because every observation seeking confirmation prepares the system in such a way that its autonomy is restricted. In the situation described by Batcheldor, the psychological conditions were in fact favorable and levitation was observed. Nobody knew about an erroneously set switch and it is difficult to understand why after the correction of this mishap the psychological situation 13

would have changed so dramatically. According to the MPI, however, the position of that switch, which is of no importance for the psychological situation, is of fundamental importance. Because of the erroneous setting of the switch the total system was objectively unable to make a recording of the phenomenon. In other words, any measurement or recording was impossible. The phenomenon could only occur because it was not completely objectifiable. A complete video recording would comprise more pragmatic information than the system was able to produce. The subjective experience of the sitters, on the other hand, is "diffuse" enough to record the less voluminous or less reliable information of the phenomenon. The situation remains vague, the system is not completely prepared for reliability. Confirmation of the actual phenomena by means of a video recording is lacking. By resetting the switch, the structure of the complete system is altered to such a degree that the phenomenon cannot occur. Switching on an additional measuring apparatus changed the potentiality of the system in such a way that particular (complementary) measurements were prevented from taking place. It goes without saying that the above does not mean that the MPI considers any objective observation of psi phenomena absolutely impossible. This would represent an inadmissible immunization. One could summarize it as follows: less equipment may have produced more phenomena! It is necessary to adapt the objective conditions of observation to the phenomenon, in such a way that enables the observer to gather the optimum pragmatic information the system is able to deliver. Without this adaptation, one throws away information. If no phenomenon occurs when a complete video recording is made, one apparently threw away too much information about the phenomenon: it does not occur any longer. If, on the other hand, a séance in darkness prevents the observer from separating trickery and real phenomena, then he has also thrown away too much information, because he does not know what he has observed. Where is the royal road between the Scylla of an observation and the Carbides of a phenomenon without observation? In answer to Batcheldor's letter, it was suggested to reduce the resolution of the method of observation, i.e., to defocus the video camera or to limit it to documentation on audiotape only. In this sense, "less" would really be "more", because we would obtain an objective recording of the phenomenon, which would be less easy to interpret than a perfect documentation, because it contains lacunae. These are exactly the ambiguities resulting from an imperfect method of recording. Suppose that only noises are recorded, in which case the causes of the noise remain unclear. If a camera is out of focus, it reduces the possibility of determining the exact location of any phenomenon. This is not to say that lacunae in the documentation procedure should leave room for manipulations or fraud (for example because one can no longer see any wires used for trickery). They should rather prevent the system from being prepared too unilaterally for reliability, so that it loses its autonomy. This method of recording reduces the pragmatic information and offers the experimenter fewer opportunities to utilize the phenomena in the sense of signal transfer. He has only a limited degree of control over the system. As the recording does not teach him exactly what is going on in the system, he cannot undertake any goal directed actions. Indeed, Batcheldor reported that he could often make an audio recording of his experiments, but that no phenomena occurred when video recordings were made. In the experiments Batcheldor performed till shortly before his death, he tried to utilize observations with differing degrees of resolution. He reported darkened sessions as well as the use of a fluorescent background panel, in front of which "cloths could materialize in the air". As predicted by the MPI, in front of a panel with a grid of fluorescent dots these materialized objects (or whatever they were) remained visible for a longer period than in front of a panel completely covered by fluorescent paint. In rare cases (infrared) video 14

recordings succeeded. In these cases levitated objects were always in such a position that it was impossible to decide whether they were really levitated or only held in front of the camera. They seemed to have been put in a position that prevented the observer from finding out how the phenomenon came about. Batcheldor emphasizes that it would have been very difficult for the sitters to manipulate the object in this specific position, as they did not know what visual field was covered by the camera, which was not equipped with a viewfinder. These manipulators could, therefore, easily have been detected. Batcheldor's impression is that the complete system "knew" exactly what was recorded by the camera and that one could only record a phenomenon if its cause remained hidden in darkness, so that it was impossible to decide whether a normal or a "paranormal" event had taken place. This is exactly the same as not being able to interpret the video recording. It contains less pragmatic information and prevents the experimenter from having complete control over the system or from making it reliable. The discussion of Batcheldor’s approach in the light of the MPI shows that the notion of (more or less complete) “control” is an important issue for the structure and limitations of PK-Phenomena. On the other hand, the impression that “mid has a real force” (J. B. Rhine) is overwhelming in most quantitative experiments in parapsychology. 8 Pseudosignals The "impression" of many observers and operators in psi-experiments that psi is a "real force" should not be laid aside as a mere illusion. From the point of view of the observer (i.e. from her or his endo-perspective), she or he is "influencing" the observed random sequence according to the instruction. Since this leads to many typical misunderstandings with respect to a proper distinction of endo- and exo-descriptions of a system, it is useful to introduce the specific notion of a pseudo-signal in order to characterize non-local correlations as they arise within an endo-description of the system. Internally, pseudosignals appear to be deterministic "signals". However, from the point of view of the exodescription of the system they are nothing but non-local correlations. Pseudo-signals are experimentally inaccessible. The exo-endo-distinction was introduced by Hans Primas (1992) with respect to physical systems. The exo-perspective is the perspective of the experimenter or the critical observer in relation to the “object” which has to be observed or measured. The endosystem is, in contrast, the “real nature” in its ontic existence. He states: "Experimentally inaccessible ontic states are not meaningless..." Concerning the psychology of the observer it becomes obvious that the description of such inaccessible ontic states is not meaningless since the "impression" (of signals) of the observer is necessary to create (in the endo-system) the pragmatic information, which produces the organizational closure of the psycho-physical system as a whole and thus the entanglement-correlations and psieffects. Without these "illusionary impressions" psycho-physical entanglementcorrelations could not emerge. Or to put it in a metaphorical language: As long as the subject is able to stay in the "heaven of the endo-system" she or he is "part" of universal laws of nature and thus interconnected with everybody and everything which has "meaning" for her or him. On the other hand, it is an illusion to believe that pseudo-signals can be used to transfer information. Information transfer requires a real measurement which is not possible inside the endo-system - an "impression" is no operationalization. But it is also impossible to transfer information by pseudo-signals in the exo-system, where "impressions" might be operationalized (e.g. by measuring actions).

15

Fig. 2: The exo- endo-distinction in the universe of discourse with the Cartesian- and Heisenberg-cut. In the exo-system, a pseudo-signal is no signal but just a non-local correlation. Again in a metaphorical language: If the subject leaves the "paradise of unintentional, holistic interconnectivity" and enters the "hell of observer experiments" she or he is no more able to use the non-local correlations in a definite way because they are cut off by the separation of the observer and the observed in the exo-system. There may remain "patterns" as a vague "memory of the paradise", but in most cases these patterns have lost their meaning. If we detect by normal signal transfer that such a pattern fits with a pattern in the exo-world we call this a "hit" or "clairvoyance". In psychological systems, however, one might think of a conversion from a given exosystem into an endo-system, for instance by introducing a meta-description in such a way that the meta-level becomes a new exo-system and hence the original level can be regarded as corresponding endo-system (Figure 1 represents such an hierarchically nested system). In experiments, this can be done, for instance, by measuring the “motivation”, “absorption” or “creativity”, the "awareness of impressions" or " awareness of emotions" of the subjects (see Lucadou 2006, and chapter 10). In this case the "awareness of impressions" etc. can be regarded as exo-system and the system of "impressions" as endo-system. It is important to realize that the concept of "awareness of impressions" cannot be applied to the level of "impressions" themselves, but often such different levels of description are not clearly distinguished. In general it is not always easy to avoid the illusion that psi is a kind of influence of the "mind over matter". It seems plausible that this misunderstanding is one of the reasons (in terms of sociology of science) why observer effect has been overlooked for such a long time both in physics and in psychology. From this point of view there seems to be no hope that a post-Cartesian science (Primas 1990) could ever enable us to heal the Cartesian cut by consciously sending real signals from "mind to matter". The "reunification of the world" or a "reentry into the paradise" can only occur on a subconscious (dream-like) level. For this kind of “perception” the term “entanglement-perception” (Lucadou 2014) seems to be appropriate. It can be considered 16

as the “forgotten” category in the sense of the German philosopher Imanuel Kant, who described the perception of space and time and causality as fundamental categories of human perception. But in spite of the impossibility of a conscious operationalization, psieffects demonstrates that the Cartesian separation between mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) is less fundamental than we have been taught to believe. According to Hans Primas the endo-system is ontic in nature and to be considered as a kind of „block-universe“ which is completely entangled and deterministic in the sense of bidirectional causation. It described by a C*-algebra. From the point of systems theory such a construction entails a kind of substratum, which seems to be absolute and thus in contradiction with the systemic approach. A solution of the problem would be to consider the endo-sytem as the largest possible global observable of the system. It contains all knowledge and data of the system in question and thus the whole pragmatic information of the system. It forms, so to say, the fishing net of any entanglement perception. Entanglement perception is always limited by the pragmatic information which is relevant for the observer. The result of the observation (or measurement) is epistemic and belongs to the exosystem. Thus the picture of the universe of discourse (Fig. 2) with the Cartesian- and the Heisenberg-cut can be put upside-down in the following figure 3.

Fig. 3: The category of entanglement-perception: The endo-, mental-, and physical system in universe of discourse 9 Pseudo-Machines Another important application of the MPI is the description of the so-called man machine interface. This is the question how psychological variables can be taken into account, if a human user works with technical devices. The problem of the adequate "user surface" gets a growing practical relevance. As an example, “homoeopathic treatment” in medicine can be considered as a technical process or as a kind of "machine" - in a very general sense, which we will call "pseudo machine" (Lucadou 2002a,b). Definition: "Real machines" are technical gadgets or devises and/or herewith related technical manuals which have a clear defined aim. They can be regarded as "amplifiers" or at least as "converters".

17

Thus a block and tackle serves as amplifier and transformer of a force. A microscope is an optical amplifier. A hair drier amplifies the property of air to dry the hair. A medicament is a machine to amplify the healing capacity of organisms. Only a few machines such as a computer are "universal". One could call it as a amplifier for the velocity and rate of formal operations. The aim of a machine need not necessarily be of technical nature. It can also serve to entertainment, health care or edification. An effective drug is in this sense a real machine, music-instrument also. Definition: "Pseudo-machines" are defined as technical gadgets and/or therewith related technical manuals of which it is assumed that they operate in an objective purely physical way. A closer consideration, however, reveals that pseudo-machines refer to psychophysical systems and contain hidden subjective, psychological components. Definition: "Classical pseudo-machines" allow a clear cut distinction between physical and psychological effects and are separable in this respect. Non classical pseudo-machines do not allow a separation between physical and psychological effects, both are entangled. As examples of classical pseudo-machines can serve most superstition instructions they only work psychologically, they include charms, astrology, precious stone therapy, consecrated, magnetized, or levitated water, the pyramid force or the tachionic therapy. With the aura-photography, the Kirlian-diagnosis, magnet- and copper-bracelet there may be an underlying real physiological part. In general, however, such a procedures are not sufficiently investigated or to complex such that a careful investigation seems hopeless (Federspiel et. al. 1994). The underlying psychological mechanism of attribution cannot be recognized by the persons concerned and thus play an important role with many classical pseudo-machines. Examples for non classical pseudo-machines can be found in the areas of medicine and their border areas the so called alternative or complementary medicine. To be mentioned are acupuncture, homoeopathy, bio-resonance, and last not least the so called spiritual healing. It is astonishing that this method in spite of being extremely controversial in school medicine due to theoretical reasons that they are widely used and that an increasing number of practical physicians use this methods in spite of its insufficient scientific foundation. Recently school medicine has started several clinical studies to investigate the action of these methods. The main issue is to check whether the used method produces an "objective effect" which cannot be explained on the bases of suggestion as it is assumed with placebos. These studies are double blind studies as well as epidemiological studies and also meta-analysis which allow the comparison and the summary of different studies. The results are astonishing: Generally speaking, they show that the methods really work and that significant differences exist between the experimental and the control groups. They show unequivocally that the results cannot be explained as a placebo effect but are robust effects which can be show with a high statistical significance (e.g. the study about paranormal healing by Beutler et. al. 1987 and the homoeopathy study of Taylor et. al. 2000 and the meta-analysis of "spiritual healing" by Ernst 2001). The main problem of these studies, however, seems to be their lack of repeatability.

18

A simple theoretical explanation - in sense of a causal mechanism - is out of sight; this becomes most obvious in the case of the homoeopathy studies and the studies about spiritual healing. In both cases one is inclined to assume that a hitherto unknown physical effect leads to a measurable healing success without any conventional medical explanation. The practitioner who applies homoeopathy simply looks for his success and he will discover that he is really successful in a great percentage of cases. Of course he does not measure this success according to the criteria which are necessary for a double blind study. These criteria are very rigid, on the other hand, however; rather secure methods to find causal relationships. If, however, in a treatment feedback plays an important role difficulties arise. During a homoeopathic treatment the physician observes the reaction of the patient and prepares his treatment and medication according to his observation. But exactly this is not possible in double blind studies. With non-local entanglement effects the same restrictions are valid, however, due to different reasons. In this case the blind condition must be considered as a part of the system, and its influence on the whole system cannot be compensated. In the extreme, double blind studies cannot be carried out without suspending the whole system. Thus it is not mistaken to consider the homoeopathic treatment as a complex communication process between the physician, the patient, and the medicament, which cannot be separated in parts. From above it is clear, that pseudo-machines are not warranted to have a long-lasting live. The live-span of classical pseudo-machines depends mainly on the psychological conditions and variables. The main factor is the slackening of fascination. However, it is possible, that a sudden collapse of the system occurs if the function of the pseudomachine is seen through by its user. In this case the psychological conditions changes instantaneously and the function of the machine is reduced to its pure physical part. Classical pseudo-machines are therefore reliable as long as the mechanism is not revealed and the psychological conditions are not changed. The exposure changes the psychological variables drastically but they can also change slowly if attention and fascination of the assumed physical mechanism cease. In contrast to classical pseudo machines, non-classical ones are not reliable even if the apparative and psychological conditions do not change (decline and displacement effects). In this case the exposure does not necessarily change the psychological variables if the organizational closure of the whole system is not abolished. It would be a mistake to believe that skeptical persons would not be successful with psi-experiments or would not have paranormal experience, respectively, that homoeopathy would not work for them. Very often the contrary is the case. The user who has no expectations that the machine can work is less able to violate the second law, because he or she does not really try to test the effect. He or she will not use the non-local entanglement correlations for a signal transfer. It is an essential condition, however, that the pseudo-machine is at least subconsciously fascinating for the user in order to establish the necessary organizational closure. As we have already described above, this means that the effect-size of the pseudomachine is a function (f) of the following systemic variables (devise-specific variables are not under consideration here): The quality of documentation G, the number of repetitions N, the change of the procedure (novelty E) and "involvement" (dimensionality D, see 19

chapter 5). The effect size decreases if G and N increase and increases if E and D increase. Effect size = f (G, N, E, D)

(7)

As a first approach one could try the following formula: Effect size = E*√ (D)\G*√ (N)

(8)

In general experimental tests prepare the system to exhibit causal-relations of (mainly) physical variables. As a result the studies which test pseudo-machines are not independent from each other and thus a different experimental approach would be necessary (see also chapter 11). The assumptions and predictions of the MPI are summarized in the following table 3: Potentiality Entanglement no Signal Complementarity Dimension of Action

no subjectivism psycho-physical correlation [F,S] ≠ 0; F = Function, S = Structure Dim (I) = MLL/T; M = Mass (Meaning), L = Length (Distance), T = Time (Rate) D = f(F, S, t, n); (complexity), f = function of I = n · i, i = f(D); f = function of, i= least action, n ∈ IN (natural number, repetitions), I = Pragmatic Information E·B=I A·R=E·B E · G ≤ Entanglement; G = Goodness of Documentation Entanglement during changes within the system Iext/(Iint+Iext)