This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Moddel Kendra Krueger Edges of Science March 6th 2011 The discussion of how psi processes may or may not disobey the laws of thermodynamics becomes a little unclear. The main statement suggests that while the local entropy of one entity of a system may decrease, say that of a receiver , entropy will simultaneously increase in the other entities, thus the total entropy of the system will in effect increase. The first example given refers to human <>human psi which may consist of telepathy or remote healing. The explanation describes how the human beings involved decrease their local entropy, but the physiological process (assumingly within their bodies) produce more entropy through the process than the amount reduced. This argument is not well supported by which human local mechanisms are reducing entropy and which physiological processes are increasing it. Let s say the physiological process is healing, and there is a low probability or chance probability that the wound will heal. If the physiological process converge to a state which is less probable than chance, then isn t that process reducing entropy to fulfill a more ordered outcome? The arguments made in reference to (retro) causation and ( ir)reversible where close to convincing, but still can be broken down in terms of semantics. The idea is that reversible processes are not casual, and thus not retrocausal, due to the fact that the casual agent will be different depending on the inertial frame of reference. However, if each inertial frame is considered independently then wouldn t it be possible to define a causal and retrocausal agent in that specific frame of reference? Theories of time and causation are tricky subjects to navigate because of the philosophical constructs one must use in order to formulate an argument. This paper attempts to explain anomalous phenomena with the mechanisms of our current scientific paradigm. However, these assertions assume that our current realm of knowledge is thorough and complete, where as some believe that the mechanisms to explain these phenomena are still just barely out of reach.