Review
"Good luck with your research!" David Chalmers, Professor in the School of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness. Australian National University --Comments emailed to the author during preparation of this book.
"Very radical" Tim Crane. Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge and Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK
--Comments emailed to the author during preparation of this book.
Product Description
From the Publisher
Dr. John Yates founded and was Editor-in-Chief for many years of the journal ("The International Journal of Theoretical Physics") which first published Richard Feynman's colossal work on Quantum Computers, where Feynman could be said to have devised the fastest digital computer which could ever be built, and also produced the source of new reasons for the possibility of numerous extra universes. Dr. John Yates corresponded with Professor Richard Feynman from the very outset of the journal.
Join the Facebook Group for this important and ongoing study of "Time Travel in Theory and Practice" at ifsgoa.com/new to hopefully obtain an advance review PDF of the work, and to read about further advances in the field. If approved as a Group Member, you can even add your own comments to the group and participate in taking this important work further.
From the Author
It is well known that modern astronomy was begun at about the time of Copernicus and Tycho. Copernicus reintroduced the idea of a heliocentric solar system but had to endure considerable religious criticism whilst doing so. Modern mathematics was effectively begun by Leibniz. Leiibniz was a Lutheran, and the Lutherans are expected to believe in 'hard determinism' so his maths reflected that. Therefore his math should be re-evaluated bearing this in mind but this never has been done adequately - unlike the idea of the sun going round the earth, which was re-evaluated. The snags became obvious to me some years ago, and now it will be necessary for all the world's mathematics and physics to be redone. The problems are getting clearer and clearer all the time, partly due for example to the work of John Dylan-Haynes, whose numbers now appear to some people to predict 'hard determinism' (or that there is no free will). My methods as described in my book help us get around this. If you take Honderich's point of view on hard determinism I think you will run up against Occam's razor eventually, but that is by the way. In my view we can salvage most of mathematics and physics from its present predicament. I've patched things up for the moment. My time machines seem to work OK and I am experimenting with a time-travelling robot.
The world lived through Copernicus's heliocentric solar system and Einstein's special relativity, so the position is nothing new.
From the Back Cover
This monograph is not a historical or philosophical work, but uses modern physics, observational and psychological techniques, virtual reality, and science studies to examine the borderline problems of time and space. In doing so we have already broken through the psychological barrier of ancient dogma, without in any way losing sensitivity towards it, and we actually catalogue and describe experiences obtained whilst travelling through time, in an acceptable and scientific manner.
Just as Einstein's theory of relativity allowed many well known current advances in science and technology, so too with this work, we may be at the forefront of great new changes in the world. My work has brought us to a stage in human history where a major conceptual leap, omparable with that of Copernicus, Tycho and Galileo is being made, for those who wish for it.
Dr. John Yates received an Honours B.Sc. and an M.Sc.at the University of Sydney, and then a Ph.D. at Melbourne University, Australia. He then went on to do post-doctoral research on the Many Body problem at the Theoretical Physics group at the Physics Department, Sheffield University, England. Subsequently he founded the 'International Journal of Theoretical Physics' with David Bohm and Clive Kilmister. He then did research on fundamental theories of physics with Professor Robin Gandy, who was a lifelong friend and important research colleague of Alan Turing. Currently Dr. John Yates is Director of the Institute for Fundamental Studies at Chandor, Goa. The internationally based Institute for Fundamental Studies was initially founded by Dr. Yates and a number of Nobel Prizewinners. Dr. Yates is a life member of the Indian Physics Association. His chief current interest is in time travel.
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
This work contains material from a number of the essays written about my time travel apparatuses, which allow travel backwards and forwards in time.
And yes, the apparatus and methods do work, but they carry a cost of time and effort.
The introduction here briefly sums up the history of the various developments of this patented process, given in more detail in subsequent chapters.
The results of Kornhuber and Deecke (1965), not to mention those of Libet, are now well known.
However the Libet work appeared some time after I had been doing some theoretical research with Robin Gandy at the University of Manchester, after discussions on the philosophy of time with Arthur Prior, whose presentist views I liked and respected, but did not altogether agree with. He had in fact introduced me to Robin Gandy and a paper (Yates, 1968) arose as a result of this work. It became clear that simple computer artificial intelligence techniques might well predict elementary results like Newton's laws, but we were not happy with that, even though I did do it. It just did not seem to encompass a summary of the true impact in real terms of even Newton's universe, and at the time I commented in the original paper (Yates, 1968) on the then recent work of Mario Bunge
(Bunge, 1967) which seems to provide a sort of conceptual bridge to the real world. Mario Bunge at the time had been selected by me as a member of the editorial board of a physics journal which I had started and run, because I had been enthusiastic about his quasi-philosophical approach to the problems of physics. I recall that at the time, philosophy was largely persona non grata in some physics journals, notably 'The Physical Review' when it was run by Sam Goudsmit, though Goudsmit certainly had broad views on the subject (Christensen, 2009). And, as I recall it, when a paper would not suit the alternative recommendation of "Annals of Physics", very occasionally we got it in the "International Journal of Theoretical Physics".
.... break in excerpt....
Obviously, a consciousness simply lagging about half a second behind reality could make it appear epiphenomenal, and perception could be regarded as being a series of disconnected events, too late for action.
On that latter note Penrose had suggested that the brain sends unconscious quantum information backward through time. In the quantum world, time is symmetrical, or bidirectional (as it also appears to be in unconscious dreams).
Aharonov and Vaidman proposed that quantum-state reductions send quantum information backward in time; backward time referral is the only apparent explanation for experimentally observed EPR effects in quantum entanglement. Further Matte Blanco concluded: ". . . the processes of the unconscious . . . are not ordered in time". All this is discussed in Tuszynski
(2006). I sincerely doubt whether such views can readily be used in the ways these writers presently suggested but the detailed use of dreamwork and its different 'logic' is something which can be and has been applied immediately to the MBI.
It is plain that there is still doubt among scientists (Edelman, 2011) in the field as to whether or to what extent consciousness is causal. Edelman maintains for example that "It is the neural structures underlying conscious experience that are causal. The conscious individual can therefore be described as responding to a causal illusion, one that is an entailed evolutionary outcome of selection for animals able to make plans involving multiple discriminations". It is not crystal clear to me as to the significance of such comments, but the mute historical hand of Leibniz's view seems to be overshadowing and perhaps clouding any likely contingent mathematics..
