Retrocausality

Scientists are putting together an experiment to find out whether the present can influence the past. Theoretically, according to lots of guys with bad hair, physics allows that. But no one has proved it. Now some scientists think they have a way to do just that.

If they succeed, they’ll also have evidence for my Donut Theory of the universe (from an earlier post), the non-existence of free will, and the existence of an Intelligent Designer, i.e. humans (see the Davies quotes in the link below). Not bad for a day’s work. Readers of The Dilbert Blog already heard that stuff from me. That’s why you come here.

Here’s a link to the article.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

My track record of predictions has been fairly good this week:

1. DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)

2. Iran is acting like a democracy (lots of public political disagreements with elected officials that will likely influence policies).

3. Free will is soon to be disproved (assuming retrocausality is proved).

4. My Donut Theory of the Universe is gaining support (okay, Einstein thought of it first but forgot to call it the Donut Theory).

5. Intelligent Design is about to be scientifically validated (the designers are humans via retrocausality).

The scientists still haven’t figured out that the way you go back in time is by going forward until you circle back to where you started. But they’ll get there. It’s the solution to string theory. Sometimes I feel like I’m doing everyone else’s work.

In 1997 I published a book called The Dilbert Future that’s full of predictions. You’d be amused at how many things I got right. For example, the last chapter describes a process similar to The Secret – currently a huge publishing phenomenon. I didn’t invent the idea, but it seemed like an idea whose time was coming. And I described it in a context that you might call retrocausality. It was by far the most popular part of my book. And the method either works, or simply feels like it works. Either way, it’s worth trying. The illusion of being in control of your destiny is very cool.

I’m spooky.

Comments

[Hubert]

Thanks.
Its the second time.

[yuytu]

viagra online buy levitra order cialis buy xanax
buy ambien buy soma buy xenical buy kamagra

[guanhua]

On personal opinion, I find this very helpful.
Guys, I have also posted some more relevant info further on this, not sure if you find it useful: http://www.bidmaxhost.com/forum/

[Dizz]

Retrocausality

course this happens - according to U-51 the americans found the enigma machine - not the english :o)

[rickb]

I've been a big fan of his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ever since I found about it while researching Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. It's cool stuff.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html

[Bruce Harrison]

Scott -- sorry to be weighing in on this so late -- I'm catching up on your posts.

I've been thinking about the retrocausality experiment you describe. I believe I've found a flaw in it. The assumption that the scientists are making is that the quantum state of the split photon pair does not resolve (into either wave or particle) until the photons pass through the slits. The problem with the supposition is that the scientists have no idea at what point the quantum resolution occurs.

By having the photons split and having one travel through a fiber-optic core that slows it down is beside the point. If the photon pairs are somehow linked, as the supposition goes, then the 'lagging' photon may resolve into particle form at the moment its pair resolves. So as it leaves the fiber optic core, it may already be resolved into particle state, and may have done so at the moment the 'leading' photon resolves into particle state. There's simply no way to tell when the resolution happened, hence the experiment appears to prove nothing.

It reminds me of a scientist's supposition that I once read in Scientific American that discussed moire patterns. If you take two sheets of plastic, each of which has a series of vertical lines on them of different frequency, when you overlay the two plastic sheets and move the top sheet perpindicular to the bottom, you see the appearance of an interference pattern which moves faster than the top sheet is moving.

From this, the supposition was made that if you were able to superimpose two light beams of different frequencies over one another, the resulting moire-like pattern could exceed the speed of light.

The flaw in the theory is that the moire pattern appears to move, but in actuality does not. It's an illusion of movement rather than movement itself -- thus not exceeding the speed of light, although it could appear to.

The same with the photon experiment you describe. It might appear that the resolution happens when the second photon passes the slits, but it could have happended simultaneously with the first photon's resolution.

Still, it's an interesting concept. But even if it is true, and retrocausality can occur, it still leaves the question of how did it all start. So whether or not we can control the universe through retrocausality, it still doesn't answer the question of how it all came into being.

But thanks for trying. It is interesting to think it through, and I appreciate you making the effort.

[Steve Hajec]

Are you sure you nailed these issues, or is it just a case of retrocausality?

[Freddy]

If they prove Retrocausality that would mean they could change it so they disproved it, meaning they didn't disprove it. It's a paradox.

[Matthew Kovich]

"The Dilbert Future" was the first thing I ever read by you.

My friend bought it for me.

Now I'm the proud owner of your two non-fiction books, various dilbert books, a dilbert calendar and have more planned to buy for the next time I'm bored/convince myself I have money to waste.

The Dilbert Future is still my favorite work of yours (next to, maybe, God's Debris). And this blog. This blog is rad.

[latsot]

"[That's what I said, only better. -- Scott]"

Heh, well that's your job.

But as far as I can tell, we aren't saying the same thing at all - I genuinely marvel that you think so. It is simply not the case that "DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted."

The article refers to some (not new) evidence that we have to take seriously. For the moment, that's all it is. People have posted about the scientific method. That involves coming up with hypotheses and how to test them. 'Evidence' relates to testing of a specific hypothesis.

This is different to deciding what you want to be true in advance and deciding afterwards that belated and misrepresented media reports of cherry-picked studies fit what you want to be true.

This discipline restricts what scientists are allowed to claim, which is also part of what gives science its power.

[John]

While retrocausality may be true I can prove that that piece of crap "The Secret" is complete and utter BS. If there was any way that laws of attraction had any possibility of actually working the way they say they do then casinos would never make any money. Have you ever met a gambler that did not truly believe they were going to winn the big jackpot. Hell I have met many gamblers that all they talk about is how much they win. They really believe they are winning. They still leave the casino with less money than they had when they entered even though they think they won. I truly believing you would win worked these people would actually win. I can guarantee they don't because the casinos continue to operate and people continue to steal to feed their gambling habits. The only possible explanation would be if both the casino and the gambler won. How likely is that. My favorite part of this is "Oprah believes in it." Of course she does. It works for her. She is a billionaire television star. She has an army of people catering to her every whim. Pretty much anything she asks for at any time someone will start making it happen. That doesn't mean the universe is changing to suit her, it means she has the resources to pay someone to get stuff for her.

[Adam]

The title of your next book: Donuts and Free Will.

[Bob]

It is up to others to judge your forecasts, it has no value if you do that yourself.

[DaveC]

"The scientists still haven’t figured out that the way you go back in time is by going forward until you circle back to where you started."

Sounds like those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[The Goose]

Now, I just skimmed the article, because I had a long day and now I'm on my second glass of wine, but I do see the hallmarks of crap. It starts with some "background" science and drops the names of real physicists (Feynman and Wheeler). But then there you are, with some guy nobody has ever heard of, hmmmmmmm, maybe not. Just cross out all the name-dropping stuff that doesn't address the issue at hand, and see what you're left with.

[Jason]

You might find this interesting:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19125591.500

How to create a universe from "pinching off" a black hole:

http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2559/25591501.jpg

[gr8hands]

Sorry, Scott, but:

"1. DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)" Only 'badly misinterpreted' by hack journalists, religious nutjobs, and certain cartoonists. The scientific community has not been so fooled by the hype in the papers. As I previously blogged, this is OLD news, more than a decade old, and as so many others have pointed out, has not diminished evolution in any way.

"2. Iran is acting like a democracy (lots of public political disagreements with elected officials that will likely influence policies)." Really, Scott, all forms of government -- including despots/tyrants/dictators/etc. -- act in some ways like a democracy because they involve other humans. There are only a few ways of getting something done in any form of government, and they will at times resemble democracy. Again, this is not news.

"3. Free will is soon to be disproved (assuming retrocausality is proved)." Others have pointed out that presuming this retrocausality is real (which I believe is not), it will not have any impact on free will -- which does exist, your non-explanations notwithstanding. I suggest you speak with a few physicists (remember, you're famous, so this will work) and they'll gladly explain why this retrocausality won't work.

"4. My Donut Theory of the Universe is gaining support (okay, Einstein thought of it first but forgot to call it the Donut Theory)." Others have also pointed out here that Einstein did not come up with anything resembling your 'Donut Theory of the Universe' which only serves to show that you're good at infrequently coming up with interesting thought experiments, but not good at the underlying science involved -- and not good at understanding any explanations which disagree with your pre-conceived notions, so you dismiss them out of hand.

"5. Intelligent Design is about to be scientifically validated (the designers are humans via retrocausality)." Again, others have also pointed out that ID is not going to be 'scientifically validated' by this so-called retrocausality. You're simply confused about what the experiment is going to attempt, as well as what any results will mean.

Please take my advice and consult directly with the people involved -- I'm certain they love Dilbert, and would be thrilled to actually hear from you. They'd give you more information than you'd possibly want to know -- but at least you'd know more than you do now.

So, as I see it, you 'nailed' nothing, except for the 'spooky' part -- which others have also posted.

I'm surprised that you didn't provide any scientific evidence for your version of positive visualizations and affirmations -- I've supplied it before, but will again: it's the reticular activation system in the human brain.

http://www.remember.org/katsoulis/2006/08/your_reticular_activation_syst.html

[John Q Public]

That's 100% BS. So scientists did some voodoo and a miniscule light particle did some weird flip-flop. These are PHOTONS. TIINNY. All you need to know about quantam mechanics is that sh%# happens when you make things small enough. You still can't practically use this.

[Robert]

I'm not sure if the present can change the past, but it sure can change the history of the past. Politicians do it all the time.

[Myke]

I think you "nailed it" with the "I'm spooky" comment, I will give you that.

[Steven]

Wow is this satire or are you really this up yourself?

Dilbert sheep don't attack me.

[Patrick]

Scott, I'm behind you all the way on this one. I see that you are indeed a supporter of the Intelligent Design theory, in spite of your previous denials. I always noticed you were a supporter, although I found it curious you always denied that you were. But clearly you are more comfortable admitting that you are in favor of ID provided it is via retrocausality (which is fine with me, that has always been the reason I have always been in favor of it).

[bloodrage bob]

you are SOOOOOO right about that SOB einstein, scott. that old fraud stole several of MY groundbreaking nobel-prize-worthy physics ideas, TOO. like the one for the ray gun? and the death ray. and the thought ray. and the "get chicks in the mood" ray.

- ray

[Dinghus]

You know, if you really think hard (on a Monday morning no less) you will know that Intelligent Design has already been proven by scientists. It has been for a very long time.

What do you think we do when we mess with DNA? Is that UN-intelligent Design?

So here are the poor scientists trying to force everyone to believe that ID is BS when it is being done by humans all the time.

Maybe they can go back and have Darwin's ship sink so they aren't now stupid enough to cling to his failed theories.

[Leora]

I have my own Doughnut Theory (cleverly differentiated by the Canadian spelling):
People are like doughnuts. Some are sweet, some are nutty, some are frosted, and some are just holes.

[E]

Scott,

I'm not convinced that this would disprove free will. Perhaps our choices are one of the things that operate retrocausally.

We metaphysically decide on some course of action, and that retrocauses back to the physics of our brains.

That seems about as plausible to me as the "what you think and feel inside your head is just an improvable illusion" theory.

[Diana W]

A few years from now I already made my reservations at Douglas Adam's Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[HALiverpool]

My BS meter and sniff tester are burnt out.

[Bruce Mackey]

SiggeLund - you should read "Thrice Upon A Time" by James P. Hogan--It's about exactly what you describe, sending messages back to yourself.

[notralph]

Does anyone else read the Wheel of Time fantasy series, where time just keeps repeating itself over such a long period of time, that no one really notices?

[Ranjith]

lets see you predict who's going to win the cricket world cup

[Namehere]

Dude, I saw the headline and my BS meter started screeching like a frickin' fire alarm

[Steffen]

Smart Ass. I wonder if Gene Roddenberry is glowing with the same air of "I got it first (publicly)". Do you think the writer of Planet of the Apes will turn in his metaphorical grave, when the earth is run by apes and humans are but their slaves? How would Jules Verne describe his feelings when finding that most of his fiction has become truth?

However, I dissect your statement to pick the points I like and the ID statement concerning humans has a very good ring to it, even though I have already seen it in Douglas Adams second Dirk Gently book (I think), where a guy has a kind of time gate going back to beginning and dying there is the initiation point of evolution (again)...

Being a smart ass myself I have to say that the evolutionary process will never fully end until the host (i.e. the earth) ceases to exist. As scientist regularly are trying to point out, we are NOT the pinnacle of evolution, we are not the termination rule of a random process!

[Valerie]

Although your post was titled "Retrocausality", I read "Retrocasuality". I was anticipating a hilarious post about old, outdated clothing, music preferences, hairstyles, etc. What a bummer when I read the actual post. Oh, well. It's Monday. I should have know it was too good to be true.

[basselope]

Okay, I'm a little late, but I have to (no free will you know) chime in on this one.

As far as anyone proving intelligent design, I must refer to the Master... Douglas Adams:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

Of course this would only apply to the Biblical God. Any other God's waiting in the que still have a perfect right to lead their non-free willed ethereal existences.

[jeqp]

This experiment has the same problem as a lot of physics experiments, and theories. It equates human knowledge with physical reality.

[Anila]

Oh damn ... i think i'm spooky too cuz i too have the same kinda theory though i never voiced it fearing fatal injuries. But since u've managed to survive so far, may be i too shud write about what i feel...

[Cyrus]

Sounds to me like the world is ready for a Dilbert Future 2: The Donut Theory written by Scott "Spooky" Adams.

Cyrus
http://blogging4burgers.blogspot.com

[Are Riksaasen]

The experiment doesn't prove retrocausality AND the non-existence of Free Will, it proves that at least on of the following is wrong:
1) Causality is only forwards in time
2) We have free will.

Off course, both might be wrong, but the experiment only proves that one of them are.
AB=C
^C = ^A + ^B
(In English: If A is true and B is true, then C is true. However, C isn't true, so A or B or both must be untrue too.)

[Gavin]

I think if I went back in time (or forward, however you want to look at it), I wouldn't have invented people. They're too complicated and messy. I can imagine coming up with fire or something, though. Fire rocks.

[Mike B]

Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" -- they work as well for processes running backward through time as forward.

This doesn't mean that in real life a process CAN run backwards as well as forwards, it's just that the maths equations don't care. The maths isn't real, it is just a way for humans to describe the world. In any physical sense it is impossible for me to have -1 apple, but negative numbers are a concept that is fundamental to maths.

I don't know whether Scott Adams is deliberately winding us all up or is illustrating the problems of a clever man with an inadequate education.

[SiggeLund]

Too cool.

The article is two months old though, any updates on the progress for these guys?

But the thought of this is shocking. If the pattern can be determined a few microsecs before actually occurring, it is easy to imagine the nerds extending the period to an hour. And then sending a bitstream through... What could be done if some people were able to send themselves a warning an hour earlier? Now THAT'S a cool cellphone application. This freaks me out.

[Xena]

Some amusing anagrams of "Retrocausality"

A Trusty Calorie

A Literacy Tours

A Sultry Erotica

Is A Clear Tryout

To Lure A Satyric

Tie A Sly Curator

A Realist Outcry

[Tom]

Proof of retrocausality would not be proof of intelligent design by humans. It would only show that it is possible, not that it happened. If they show that retrocausality is possible we will probably find that the universe has included some fine print to make sure nobody actually does anything like create themselves.

[LA Guy]

I won't be impressed until they can un-ring a bell.

[Kevin Kunreuther]

You sound like a twenty-first century Immanuel Velikovsky: you attribute to yourself other people's heavy lifting, dress it up in surrealist situations, bow for the applause and applesauce equally and rake it in. Hats off, gentlemen, hats off.

[Waxy]

Do you know what this means? Assuming the experiment is a success you could hook the Wave/Particle detector at the end of the 6 mile long fibre optic cable to the binary output of a CPU. Hook the other sensor for the entangled proton to a binary input of the same CPU. Now you can send data and receive it before you send it. You’ve just created a faster than light CPU … I think I will call it a Retrocausium CPU. If you can receive data before you send it you can create a loop that will process data backwards. The more data and bigger the problem the further back in time it will finish. It could solve global warming using a mathematical weather model of the earth in -10 seconds. It could analyse all the data from all radio telescopes and find intelligent life on other planets in -1 minute. It could analyse the human genome and cure all known diseases in -1 hour. The possibilities are endless … it could revolutionise the computer industry ... but I should get back to binding more project files from 1997 my boss is watching.

[Billy B]

We may circle around to where we started, in a way. There is a tribe of monkeys starting to use spears to hunt with. Starting the evolutionary process all over again being as you monkeys got it wrong.

I hope they get it right next time being as you idiots screwed up your brains so much and are destroying yourselves. Make sure you leave well documented history's of all your fuck ups with your stupid religions and maybe they will.
Billy B

[n]

The TRUE donut theory -

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=438

And Iran is NOT acting like a democracy, USA has STOPPED acting like one. God! These Americans!!

[Andrew]

Are you a messiah and/or may we start a religion that celebrates Adamsism?

[Xyfbzi]

I specialize in logic and making sense of stuff. I don't want to believe in retrocausality because the universe I'm good at is more logical, and I would be lost if the world wasn't like that.
If enough people like me wanted to make retrocausality not exist, would we be able to change the past via the future as you suggest, and make retrocausality not true?

[Rich]

I predict that Scott Adams will make more scientifically vacuous claims followed by blowing his own trumpet.

[butterfly]

I don't know, Scott. After skimming all your crazy spam and blogs, and such, I am beginning to question your efficiency skills…

[Aardwizz]

Like you, Scott, I have a BS detector.

Like you, mine also goes off when I hear about how scientists claim to be able to trace all 500,000 years of human evolution from a handful of humanoid fossils found in a few points in the world, that date from random times. And it rings REALLY loud when a scientist claims that HIS new fossil shows the important link between X and Y - talk about luck!

It does not go off when you claim there is no free will. But if there is no free will, then many other things disappear too:
- Intelligence (all these strokes of genius of yours are pre-programmed responses to the random environment you exist in - they cannot be attributed to YOU);
- Love (just a pre-programmed biological reaction; you only think you love your wife.)
- Beauty (the colors are what they are; and your appreciation of them is just a matter of your upbringing.)
and so on.

It may be an illusion, but it's one I'd rather believe in than not.

------------

Feinman idea that you cannot distinguish between an electro moving forward in time and a positron moving backwards in time has the interesting consequence that there may only be ONE electron in the entire universe, ping-pong-ing back and forth between the beginning and the end of the universe.

The BS detector is silent again. That doesn't prove its true, only that it isn't patently false.

------------

Regarding the twinning photon experiment, however, the BS detector buzzes again. The phase that triggers it is "single photon". There's just something about the idea of an "elementary particle" being split that doesn't ring true.
Electrical charge is quantized, and is unsplitable. And while I understand how an electron in a particular atom will decay from an excited state to a lower state and releasing light of a single frequency and discrete energy, this just doesn't ring as a "single" photon, since the frequency and energy of this photon is different from the frequency and energy of a photon release by a different excited state, or a different atom.

[KiwiAtaahua]

Spooky/nerdily esoteric; potato/unwashed edible tuber

[Theo Bee]

Toying with the concept we are busy designing our own universe is fun.
It of course requires us to have a modicum of free will, individually or collectively.

It is clear how it operates, say P&F discover cold fusion, it promptly gets confirmed by some labs and denied by some others, clearly at that point it is undecided if it is going to be true.

So a contest ensues if this can be fitted into what our universe (through us) accepts as possible and/or desirable.

The tug of war between the universe and us on that still continues.

BTW, I do hope you had a look into the wave theory of our universe, see for example http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/PNASLast.html
It makes some kind of strange sense, the extension that there are incoming waves from external to our universe, implying what we perceive as a closed universe is an artefact is even more mind boggling.

Its all done with mirrors aquires a new meaning

[Lucas]

Speaking as one who teaches Physics for a living, I can only say that you've been in California way, way too long. By the way, thanks for being infinitely amusing; smiles beat the heck out of Prozac.

[DWH]

So the root of this whole theory is,
"What comes around goes around."?!?

[le Big Mac]

Hi Scott and his fans,
I was imagining your Visualization theory from the Dilbert Future got justified by this Secret craze - it just needed the right warm/fuzzy ungeeky marketing scheme to make it palatable to Red America (remember when Red meant Anti-American? WTF?). It hasn't worked for me yet, and believe me I try but it costs nothing to put in the effort, right?
I still think the Moist Robot theory is crap though. Apologies.

[Shawn]

Hmm. Boring and arrogant. Not a good combination. (But at least you'll get lots of comments!)

[D. Mented]

"...and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space because there's bugger-all down here on earth!"
(Star-Stepper's waltz, Monty Python's "Meaning of Life")
...Seemed appropriate.
D. Mented

[Paul]

Hi Nostradamus,

I am confused, which is rather easy, perhaps you would care to enlighten me.

I believe in free will, but I believe decisions are influenced by biology, emotions and a persons past. If retrocausality is proven, it appears to me that this means a persons future will influence his decisions. Which is rather cool, thanks for posting the article.

[Bill Almighty]

HA! You have it all wrong again.. You didn't predict any of this.. You caused it!

[Zeddicus]

I feel compelled to point out that you also predicted in Dilbert Future that cable provided internet was doomed. Lets take a look at how that turned out shall we? Though I suppose that in your defense you didn't really have a choice. After all... you don't have free will!

[Scruffy Dan]

I don't recommend getting your scientific facts/theories from the mainstream media. It has a poor track record, and frequently exaggerates the findings, or simply gets it flat out wrong. This probably happens even more so when the subject matter is political (probably not an issue here) or when the subject matter is very complex and difficult for the average joe to understand (which this theory probably is).

[Bryan]

Scott, how does retrocausality disprove free will? Even assuming that someone could send a signal to the past, how would that eliminate free will?

People are given lots of good reasons not to do stupid things and yet still do. I bet a lot of them would still do really stupid things even if they got a note from the future telling them not to.

[franky]

It is just fun to read all this comments.

[Todd]

Prediction: Scott Adams will someday travel through time, thus retro-causing the creation of mankind. He will become known simply as "Adam" and say that God created him because that's the only thing the evolving monkeys can understand.

[Therum]

Ben, that's not the point of the blog. If you want funny, there are plenty of places for that, but the Dilbert Blog is about more then that. Also, it's Serious Sunday.

[Ian]

For anyone who thinks this phenomenon may exist, and may have practical application in the real world, you might want to read the scarily prescient Isaac Asimov's pseudo-articles on Re-Sublimated Thiotimoline (written as gags when he was working on his PhD thesis in Biochemistry). The first appeared in 1948!

Take that, Scott.

[Ian]

I've often wondered how you reconcile no free will with the ability to affect the future through affirmations. I don't have a firm point of view on either, but "I was always going to try to change the way the universe is because that's how the universe made me" seems a little hard to support.

[Jim]

the topic was too murky for me.

"To Jim:

I was wondering yesterday, how long it would take some poor desperate soul to jump up and yell,"WMD! WMD!". Not long at all, as it turns out...Pitiful!

CFS '93

Posted by: car free since '93 | March 18, 2007 at 10:00 AM"

See, even you admit I am right.

[Ben]

yeah seriously scott, i believe you have reached the tipping point here. dilbert is funny. you are not. no-one comes here for rants on how we don't have free will an humans are god. i am a liberal atheist, but seriously, just make a few jokes and dance monkey dance!

[Andrew P]

Imagine a 2-dimensional world. How would a sphere look to them? Since they have no concept of the third dimension, the only way they could envision such a thing would be to integrate it over "time", as a circle that seems to grow and then shrink.

Here's the trick, though: there's no way they can tell if it's a 3D sphere, a 4D hypersphere, or anything above that.

So by showing that we can effect things backwards through time, you merely demonstrate that the "time" dimension, if such a thing exists is higher than the currently-accepted number 4. However, it does NOT disprove the fact that time exists at all. What it DOES suggest is that the fourth dimension (time) is curved around a fifth dimension in the same way that the 2-dimensional surface of the earth is curved around the actual 3-dimensional ball in space. Therefore, if you go far enough into time, you'll loop around and be in the past.

This is all fairly well-known research. It seems like you're just subconsciouly absorbing it and then "predicting" press releases.

I don't know how that relates to free will, but it sounds like it should.

[David]

There is absolutely no way to prove retrocausality. If you used retrocausality to make yourself not say what you just said to your boss, then that would not be proving retrocausality because you wouldn't remember saying that thing to your boss in the first place because it never happened. So if in fact it does work and will take place, we can never prove that it does because the thing you change will just never have happened.

[Hacker Kitty]

well, personally i think i may be having the first part of a retrocausality experience. Several times every day this past week i have been told "You're on crack, mate" when i am, in fact, not, and never have been.

All i can assume is i am experiencing the effects of a point in the future where extraordinary circumstances overcome my objections to taking recreational drugs other than alcohol, and hence i come to be on crack. Thanks for clearing that up... great, now i can worry about my inevitable future as a crack whore (i assume if i gained a crack addiction i would become a whore too, i mean a girl's got to have some fun right?)

Also i HAVE to eat chocolate icecream, which is special stuff i truly did buy for someone else, cos otherwise 2 weeks from now it will defrost in the car journey home. Retrocausality is tough, man.

[Mark Thorson]

Reply to Jim: chlorine gas
is NOT mustard gas. Mustard
gas is bis (2-chloroethyl)
sulfide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard

[Yellow]

WOW! That last post was harsh.

Anyway I'm so glad to see the words 'Intelegent Design' finally in a place they belong

[jerry wolfe]

freebert chimed in with:

"Hey, I think my pencil just moved!"

Pencil??? Do you work at the Smithsonian?

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[mark]

In the predictions in your book, you had an idea that items expanding would cause gravity.

You also said that a friend of yours couldn't see a problem with the idea.

Neither of you thought about orbitals. Why would your "stuff gets bigger" cause orbial motions? Neither of you thought why density made a difference, either.

Your ideas are thought provoking. True? No, not really (for any useful definition of true).

[Harry Johnston]

The experiment the article you quote is talking about is based on a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It can be demonstrated mathematically that quantum entanglement does not permit faster-than-light or, equivalently, backwards-in-time communications, no matter how the experiment is set up.

Classical analogy for the experiment described: go to Boston. Put a red marble into an envelope and a blue marble into another envelope. Mix them up so you don't know which is which. Choose one envelope at random and send it to, let's say, Auckland, New Zealand.

Phone the guy in Auckland and tell him to open his envelope. Then open yours. You find a red marble. Tell the guy in Auckland that you "caused him" to find a blue marble by means of back-in-time communication. Argue loudly and repeat.

(Quantum entanglement seems weirder than this because it allows non-commuting observables. But once you've got your head around those, entanglement is no weirder than classical correlations such as red marble / blue marble.)

Harry.

[Alan]

Scott, I see your point that disproving something is much easier in winning an agreement here... should everyone of us create their version of how the world works before saying someone is wrong or inconsistent?

[Walt K.]

Yikes! What a horrible idea.

To think that some bozo in a future time is screwing around, affecting me in this present moment.

My worst nightmare: George Bush in a future time is perpetuating the ongoing catastrophe of this misguided administration.

Now I really feel like a "brain in a vat."

[Joe Mamma]

I was recently re-reading The Dilbert future and was amazed at how many of your predications came true.

In a future blog entry, for the tenth anniversary of the book, you should list the predictions and how many have been proven right and wrong so far.

[DML]

But is the Donut Glazed? You're taking credit, but there are some obvious holes in your theory.

[jim]

But...if the experiment doesn't work, will that be evidence of the contrary? I think not. I think what I'll hear then is that we just don't have the capabilities yet to do the "correct" experiment.

Now you have something in common with Saddam (or is it the UN...I get the two confused all the time). It is almost alway to prove the negative.

So...the bottom line is...if it works, you're a genius. If it doesn't work, you're a genius (in the future). I don't like that kind of argument.

[Jedi Kevin]

I would think that retrocausality PROVES free will, not disproves it.

You first claimed that free will was an illusion because the cognitive part of the brain fired after the reflexive part. Retrocausality now makes it possible for the cognitive part to "be in control" of the process.

[larry horowitz]

This subject would make some good Dilbert strips. Why not have Dilbert date a tachyon?

[Sam Thornton]

Wow! This explains how those pesky liberals sabotaged us. By continually harping on how stupid and incompetent the Glorious Leader is, they have literally thought us into all the horrible history of the last six years. Dasterdly Dems!

[Christa Bedwin]

Some idiot wrote today:
"The fact that you have scientists proving things in contradiction of one another tells you something..."

This reminds me of the religious nuts who tried to talk me out of my "belief" in plate tectonics, because "continents can't float around like lily pads, you know." Well, right. It's not like lily pads. I could explain it to you, if your mind was open. . . which clearly it's not.

What scientists prove (or more accurately, disprove) in present or future times that improves upon or disproves a past theory does NOT prove that the original scientific methods were fallacious, or that the new ones are, either. The new results are often the result of new technology or improved understanding based on quite a pool of smart heads working on the material for laborious hours, sharing ideas through conferences, journals, and e-mail, and then, eventually, developing and testing new ideas.

It's called the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. It is expected that it should be a fluid, ever-improving thing, a base of knowledge that grows and refines. That's what scientists (hundreds of thousands of them) work toward. You might only hear the names of a few dead white guys in relation to science, but the fact is that our scientific knowledge base is a collaborative effort of more people than live in your little town (even if your little town is NY, NY) and is a far long cry from the cult knowledge arising from a bunch of people reading and believing as gospel whatever some "philosopher" guy thought up and wrote down while sitting around smoking hallucinogenic drugs.

In short: science is supposed to change with more evidence, doofus. All good science is open to revision. Get an education and/or be quiet.

[TallDave]

Sadly, you can't take any credit for the above, since as you do not have free will you made no choices that resulted in the above outcomes.

"I’m spooky."

No, the chance outcome that resulted in these coincidentally resembling something in your head is spooky.

[fred ipsum]

There is nothing in the article to suggest that human observers *deliberately* set up the conditions in the universe to be suitable for life. So, even if we discount the multiple-universe theory and are trying to explain a designoid universe, what is suggested in the article is not design, and if proved, it actually provides good evidence *against* Intelligent Design, because it builds a stronger case for a universe with natural laws, rather than one with a deliberate controlling hand.

Secondly, if we take your previous arguments against free will, you seem to be wanting to redefine intelligence as a property of the universe rather than individuals:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/02/is_the_dead_hor.html

Yet you say here:
"Intelligent Design is about to be scientifically validated (the designers are humans via retrocausality)."

So, which is it? If we take intelligence to be a property of the universe, and humans having no free will, we can't also be Intelligent Designers.

And I don't see how you can claim that as a "hit" anyway, seen as you recently wrote "I remind you that I don’t believe in Intelligent Design".

Also, I don't understand why you (at least claim to) refuse to read books written by scientists on evolution, due to reliability concerns, yet you're totally comfortable to keep score by popular science articles in the mass media (which tend to contain the same science and arguments as the books, only filtered through somebody that doesn't understand it properly, and adds value and hypes up every discovery to the max). Taking this article as an example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/

"DNA can even reveal how many pilgrims made that trek."

This metaphor is straight out of The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins.

" Our species' travels through time proceeded in fits and starts, with long periods when "nothing much happened," punctuated by bursts of dizzying change,"

You'll find this in Gould (Dawkins disagrees, see especially The Blind Watchmaker)

"That lets scientists use this rate to calibrate a 'molecular clock' "

As covered in The Ancestor's Tale, Blind Watchmaker, River out of Eden, etc.

"That model assumes that each biological innovation, whether bipedality or a large brain or any other, evolved only once and stuck."

Wrong, no it doesn't. The author is confusing phenotypic effects with genes. From Climbing Mount Improbable: "When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal kingdom." And from The Ancestor's Tale: "All your ancestors are mine, whoever you are, and all mine are yours...". See also any source on convergent evolution. All this appears to be stating is that they might have found some examples of covergent evolution in closely-related species. So, the bit of the article that's most-hyped *gasp* isn't as revolutionary as it seems.

If you're going to be hearing a lot of the same things, I don't see how you can accept one and not the other.

Let's look at your actual prediction, from:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/03/my_opinions_par.html

"Lastly, I expect that the theory of evolution will change dramatically in my lifetime, just as many other well-established theories have. I don’t know what that change will be, but I suspect people will stop arguing that virus mutations are good evidence that humans descended from slime. I think we’ll get a better theory for how the big evolutionary changes happened, but it will still fit under the umbrella of evolution."

And what your claimed "hit" was:

"DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)"

That's giving yourself a rather generous interpretation of the situation. I wouldn't call what's covered in the article a dramatic change, and making a vague prediction of change when molecular evidence was giving such good results is pretty much "predicting" something that was already happening.

Also, sometimes you talk about evolution as a simple theory with the evidence being separate, e.g. " But personally, I’m cautious about any theory that keeps the same conclusion regardless of how many times the evidence for it changes" - this view of things would not let you claim a hit on evolution having changed, because the simple concept of accumulation of change hasn't. However, once you include all the bits of it as being inside the theory, the prediction becomes worthless as it's inevitable some of it will change - I've not heard any scientist claim to have all the answers on evolution, just a promise that "we're working on it".

I'm not saying that it isn't useful to occasionally use terms in different ways. It's just that if you're starting to keep score on what you said, it helps if you've been consistent, or at the very least state which definition you're using on what occasion.

[rd]

and wonder of wonders the post mysteriously disappears
now i really believe in
"one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy"

[Dinosaurhunter]

Intuitively, retrocausality seems like more of a social science phenomenon in that, what is history beyond how it is perceived. Pondering this leads me to the Zyionophilisophical (pretty sure I just invented that word) perspective of every living self-aware being representing an entire universe of existence. In other words, we all kind of live in our own little worlds, so our perspective of history and the state of the world in general is the reality we make our contributions to contingency based on. You might even suggest that everyone has the reciprocal power of protocausality (pretty sure that's not a word, even if I claim it's invention) and the ability to make the world and everyone elses around them a better or worse place. =D

[latsot]

>1. DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have
>been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)

Not quite. A welcome contribution to the body of evidence reminds us to be careful about drawing conclusions. This happens every day in science. It is hardly a revolution or even an indication that anything is wrong. It is a reminder that we need to keep looking. Which we were doing anyway, thank you very much. The only thing at fault so far is your personal view of science and of scientists. The implications of thousands of scientists working in different areas being labeled 'THE' scientists, is deeply offensive. Scientists do the work you can't be bothered to do.

[That's what I said, only better. -- Scott]

>3. Free will is soon to be disproved (assuming
>retrocausality is proved).

I can't see how this would disprove free will. It seems pretty clear to me that free will doesn't exist, but I don't see how this concept 'proves' it.

>4. My Donut Theory of the Universe is gaining support
>(okay, Einstein thought of it first but forgot to call it
>the Donut Theory).

You don't have a theory. You have a blog entry.

r

[elliot]

Maybe you're brilliant. Or maybe you're just one lucky monkey at a keyboard. If enough monkeys type up enough blogs and books, and you have to agree with me that there are a lot of those out there, then sooner or later at least one of them will make sense. Heh. But that's a stretch. I don't think that most of this makes sense... i.e. is reasonable... plausible ... i.e. is not pseudo-science... mmmm donughts...

[car free since '93]

the topic was too murky for me.

To Jim:

I was wondering yesterday, how long it would take some poor desperate soul to jump up and yell,"WMD! WMD!". Not long at all, as it turns out...Pitiful!

CFS '93

[freebert]

First, The University of Sydney has a "Centre for Time"? Berekely has one of those too, but they hold all of the experiments in Peoples Park.

Second, "...It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forward and backward through time." Physical waves? from particles? That interact? Not only are we going to be able to go back in time, I am finally going to be able to move that pencil on my desk with my mind. Yeah! I just need to concentrate harder. Maybe I need a "coincidence detector" that was mentioned in the article.

Third, no one knows what a photon is. They can describe it, and they can create interesting experiments that contradict other experiments, but your everyday physists doesn't know any more about photons than a caveman sitting in front of his campfire casting shadows on the cave wall.

One of my favorites about photons, they are a particle with no mass. How can a 'particle' have no mass? That's not much of a particle. And yet it can be effected by gravity. Intensifed by radiation into a killer beam that can be used to blow up planets like Alderaan. Even without mass, cool.

But this idea that particles send out faster than light physical waves that go forward and backward in time to communicate with each other? Sounds like something Dr. Spengler (Ghostbusters) would have come up with to explain why the goop in the jar could dance.

On a quantum level all sorts of abnormal behaviour can be observed - that has no bearing on our much more complicated systems. As an example liquid helium cooled to a superfluid state will crawl up the walls of the container holding it (opposing gravity!).

Hey, I think my pencil just moved!

[Greg]

Here's some reading for your "moist robot" theory of free will:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/the_big_wow.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

No idea what this means for it, as it says there is more to the brain than just the physical object, but it's still ultimately governed by physics. It's quantum physics we don't really understand yet, but it's something that may not behave deterministically like a computer.

No idea if the theory is real or how to evaluate it, as it's met with skepticism in the scientific community but one of the people behind it, Roger Penrose, is a very credible and accomplished scientist rather than some crackpot or religious nut.

Anyway, just interesting reading. If you're willing to believe there's more to evolution than what we currently know, here's something to tell you there could be more to human consciousness than the physical brain. Just so you know, I didn't think there was either, so this isn't a case of someone looking for evidence to support their preexisting ideas. I thought it was just the brain, and it probably still is, but this planted a tiny seed of doubt in my mind.

[Big Al]

The fact that you have scientists proving things in contradiction of one another tells you something...

[Alan]

Now I am curious why those intelligent people have to DESIGN our world, what's their intention? why do they leave soemthing good and something bad here (this world is like a mine field)

[Jules]

You know, the only thing that makes my head hurt is trying to make it through all the comments. I love the way you make me think, Scott. I always learn something and expand my mind and think of all the new possibilities that I couldn't have even fathomed before. And yes, sometimes I really have to take my time reading it to truly wrap my brain around the concepts. But, then, I get to the comments and oh. my. God. It is really baffling trying to figure out where all these closed-minded people are coming from. It really is. I'm not saying I'm right, or you're right, or the scientists are right, but these people who just SHUT DOWN and don't even CONSIDER these ideas are just morons. Ok, I think I'm done now.

/rant

Thanks, Scott. There's nothing like a Sunday morning mental workout.

[Jedi Kevin]

Observation: 50% of all predictions come true.

So, if you can highlight your successes and hide your failures, you look like a genius. But it's still all just an optical illusion.

[Alan]

Now I am curious why those intelligent people have to DESIGN our world, what's their intention? why do they leave soemthing good and something bad here (this world is like a mine field)

[Kevin]

You sound more like my mom than a Nostradamus with a funny bone. She has the habit of expecting something terrible, out of every new thing. And considering the fact that she does it always, its bound to come true for something. And then she goes "I told you so."

Don't count on your skills elsewhere. Their scope is best when restricted to your blog. Which is quite entertaining I'd say.

[Christopher]

So, if this is correct could we then consider the possibility that becoming a syndicated cartoonist caused you to write the affirmations rather than the other way around?

[You could. It would explain everything. -- Scott]

[Ranger]

Yep, this is a fine example of a theory that triggers the bullshit alarm.

Let's see:
- Humans designing life requires consciousness (don't ask me why, I'm just quoting the article and you seem to take it as a source of truth). But consciousness requires free will, something that is in violation of the theory.
- Where did you get the idea of time being circular? There is absolutely no reason for this assumption. There is also no use for it, because if it is really circular, sending a message forward to the next loop is exactly the same as sending a message backward.
- Humans designing themselves is just plain silly (not impossible, just silly). It's in the category "who designed god?".

Now think of this theory:
- once upon an outside-time, a group of people decided to create the universe. They all chose an avatar and started programming. Then the pressed "execute" and the big bang started. And the rest of time. Including retro-causality.
- at some points in time the avatars became active and played their programming. And even though the avatars "life-span and actions" were fixed, they did possess free will, as their creators had made conscious decisions when programming them.
- One of the creators (whose avatar was called "Scott Adams") liked the program so much, that he executed it again and again, only because he liked dougn-nuts.

There you have it: the answer to life, the universe, and the rest (including free will). And most important: humans currently possess the technology to duplicate this experiment.

[Nerdie McSweatervest]

I'm going to keep on saying this as long as Scott provokes me...

Science can't prove the non-existence of free will, since the alleged "scientific method" or "logic" or whatever they're using is, of course, just predetermined, non-free-will, random action. Unless it's not, in which case they're wrong.

So there.

[SandyCandy]

The spookiness you evidence resides in all of us. The difference being that you utilize your ability. All of us
could be in the know if we would just practice using that talent. You are an inspiration to all.

[Adam]

When you decide to start wearing robes, calling yourself a prophet, I'll join your church. We'll call ourselves the Adamsonians, or maybe the Dogbertians.

[rd]

forgot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIFhIKNipl0

[Jim]

That's ok if you got those right, cause on another front you got one wrong. Did you see the AP article about the use of a WMD in Iraq by terrorists yesterday?

WMD is defined as an ABC device where A = Atomic, B = Bacterialogical and C = Chemical. One of the first chemical weapons was mustard gas which is chlorine gas. By using chlorine trucks as weapons yesterday, we have a chemical attack, thus a WMD.

[Or does it prove I'm right about retrocausality? -- Scott]

[Sven]

I love you!!!

[Mr Bongo]

If we're so intelligent, then why can't we solve our own man-made problems?

We should be living in a crime-free, disease-free, pollution-free oasis - a paradise where every man, woman and child are well-educated, well-feed - achieving their full potential in society - but it's just the opposite...why?

Because we have rejected the source of true knowledge....and hence we reap the rewards of own folly.

Nice try though :)

[terry k]

It sounds to me that you believe specific scientists that (in an exaggerated way) support your "theories" of physics/free will/ donut theory/et al. while at the same time dismissing the scientists who believe in evolution.

Just goes to show you that you truly are a normal person. Congratulations!

[rd]

not retro and may be wrong causality
what i deduce from your yesterday's funny posts
a majority of your readers are irish or descendants and were busy partying
or they were startled by your productivity
and thought like me "have i skipped one day in my life?"

an old joke
a dean arguing with physicists:
"why i always have to buy an expensive equipment for your department? look at mathematicians - all they need is paper, a pen and a trash can. And philosophers? They don't even need a trash can!"

[Bromond]

Could you please be more specific? What KIND of donut is the universe(powdered cake donut, spice cake donut, crumb cake donut, blueberry cake donut, beignet, devil's food cake donut, cake donut, custard bar, apple fritter, buttermilk bar, churro, old-fashioned donut, twist donut, raised donut, French donut, jelly-filled donut, donut hole, cinnamon roll, Bismarck...)? Gimme a raspberry jelly-filled with vanilla frosting! (...and a defibrillator paddle -- to go, please)

[Misanthropic Scott]

Sorry Scott,

I still think you're missing some very key points about evolution. The theory states that all life on this planet evolved from other species back to the first organic replicator.

The only difficulty has been trying to find the one true inheritance hierarchy. Yes, it is often difficult to infer from the fossil record. DNA will help put many species into place. We'll probably still have trouble with fossils too old to get any DNA from. Big deal. This is not earth shattering information. It is not even new information. It does nothing at all whatsoever to the theory of evolution. It also does nothing about natural selection. It's all about sorting and categorizing. This is hardly central to anything theoretical. It is merely taxonomy. Highly interesting taxonomy, but taxonomy nonetheless.

[I never made the argument you're debating. -- Scott]

As for backward time-travel, I’ll take a wait and see attitude. It sounds like the experiment has been thought up, but not yet performed.

Also, the life goes back in time to create the conditions for life sounds far fetched and like a complete violation of Occam’s razor, at least for the moment. There are many other explanations for this that all seem more likely to me. I’d bet on either a one true solution to some physical theory yet to be named, or possibly to string/brane theory before this one. I’d also bet on the anthropic principal before this. I think you need to read up on a bunch of topics before making these statements. You may be failing to meet even your own criteria for philosotainment by getting this far from reality.

[Cache]

Scott, did you learn nothing from Star Trek: Enterprise?? Per T'Pal clearly stated "The Vulcan Academy of Science has conclusively determined that time travel is no possible."

Debate ended.

[Anthus]

Replace "spooky" with "special" and add your quotient.

Popular science articles like to talk about the possibilities of things way beyond the scope of realism. For instance, quantum entanglement _can_ be explained by way of retrocausality... or it could be explained by other means. Wikipedia says that the "prevailing opinion" doesn't require any direct communication between entangled particles, but that's a rather vague statement, scientifically.

So this article hypes time travel because it's cool and mind-bending while stretching the science past what's really useful to talk about.

And I thought you weren't arguing for intelligent design in all those other posts. #5 seems to say that you believe in it, so that claiming you weren't out for it in those other posts was only smoke and haze...

I'm tempted to agree with Zeph.

[Jack]

I like the Donut Theory. Kinda. It's an interesting toy. But aren't you as guilty as the snake-handling, sister-marrying fundamentalist gun-monkeys are of attempting to raise the significance of the ape species to which you happen to belong to Cosmic levels? Strikes me as a more intelligently made expression of: "we HAVE to be special. We just HAVE to be."

[Darren E]

Thanks, Scott.
I came to this blog for the wit, sarcasm, and philosotainment.
But I staid for the retrocausality.
Or did I...?

I'd say more, but I can't, because I have no free will. The big bang is telling me to have another Sqare Bear (Bundaberg Rum for non-Aussies).

Mmmmm. Rum.

[Ron Hardin]

Effects go before causes all the time. You just don't notice it because of the convention of putting causes in the past tense. Example, ``intended.'' Its point is to frame the situation as that picture.

[Lars]

But, can it then still be called *intelligent* design?

[Jason Dumler]

Part of their article describes how you can see a cause and effect, but you can't actually change something...the cause and effect are linked. You're making the decisions now as much because of the effects of the past as you were making the decisions then because of the effects of the future. This would rule out free will (and randomness), but would also rule out Intelligent Designers (us). We can't reach back, or if we did, we're not reaching back to affect things, we're reaching back because things were effected. That's not being Intelligent Designers, that's just following the script.

In order to talk to the beginning of the universe, we'd need particles that could be 'entangled' with more modern particles. The particles that could be entangled didn't exist back then - so what did we talk to? If we waited until the particles existed, what percentage of particles do we talk to? It's got to be quire a few. I guess if you're talking about the creatures at the end of the Universe, the could probably put a planet, or solar system's worth of protons together and jiggle them. Wouldn't it make as much or more sense to do stuff with the next universe coming along and set it up so that the intelligent designers cropped up really quick, so they'd have a lot of time to play?

[Bob Surunkle]

The Secret is a load of crap. Believing you can control the world with your mind isn't very cool, it's the sign of a delusional mind.

[A delusional mind is a normal mind, according to the scientists. -- Scott]

[LA Clay]

Billy the Kid said it best: "If you shoot at it enough times you're bound to hit it once"

[Peter]

At last! I will have thought my experiment had been destined to fail, but you have been shown to be about to come through in the end.

[niCk(MemBeth)]

Hey. I pointed you to the Law of Attraction yesterday, and today you talk about "The Secret", which is based on that principle. HHMMM. I think you should start your own marketing venture to sell this idea. It could be called, "Power Braining".

The process in "The Secret" has been around for a long time. I first heard of it in the 70's called "The Power of Positive Thinking". Some people are born this way, IMHO, I have always been a positive thinker, even the the rest of my family is overly negative. I have been the only one from my childhood family who has been successful, and moving away from that negativity was the first step. But I don't "try" to be positive, it just flows naturally for me.

I have not read "The Dilbert Future", I'm interested in take on this.

[Francesco Orsenigo]

"DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted."

It's quite easy to predict that scarce informations on a hard research subject lead to bad interpretations, it happens normally with all science and knowledge.
People make the best possible interpretations of the information they have.

Btw, one thing is making predictions, another is belive strongly enough in such predictions to take actual actions.
Everyone makes good predictions, few dare to really bet on them.

[Deepak Verma]

Yahoo!...am the first one to post comment or what..

and yes, I believe in your thinking. You might seem like a crackpot but you talk sense..99 % of the times..

Dilbert rocks..I too..;)

[Gabe]

The one time I am the first person to blog I can't think of something witty to say... dammit

[jerry wolfe]

Here's an experiment for you. If you think things you do now will influence the past, stop reading articles in papers from the Bay area and see if they then hire new writers who are not the offspring of drug addled '60's burn outs that drifted South from the Russian River. Perhaps the ex-hippie acid eating parents will lose the support base of their children, and have to find work as old geezers, filling them with regrets for what they did / didn't do.

Hmmmm! Well, maybe not change the actual past, but the past debris.....

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[CLB]

History may be written by the winners, but now will be edited by everyone. ;)

[Dennis]

Do we have to pray to you now? Are you going to ignore all lottery related requests like the other guy?

[Rahul]

I remember reading that article and wondering how long before Scott Adams wrote a post on it. If retrocausality is true, your post today may have influenced me a couple days back ;).

[Agnostic Anarch]

Wow! You're spooky!!

[John Bonus]

You are, also, full of yourself.

[iain broadfoot]

Would it prove the non-existance of (my) free will too much if I were to point out that the only way for you to "predict" these things is for the scientists to retroactively whisper them to you in your sleep?

[JoNa]

What I find really spooky is that by combining The Secret with retrocausality, you could change both your past and your future. Imagine the results of everyone in the world doing that.

BTW, I bought the Dilbert Future several years ago and used, with minor modifications, the method described in the back of the book. I consider it to have had moderately successful results, although not always in the ways I would have preferred. Is that kind of like praying to the Dilbert God?

Oh no! Another religion! Ahhhhhhhhhh!

[Sexton Lovecraft]

The truth is what you believe, sir.

"DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)"

Unfortunately, false - unless you're talking abou the general public. See http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm#Transitionals .

The complexity has been known for some time, but