The 188 Axioms of Theophysics

112_EV15.3_PEAR-Lab-Results

4 min read

EV15.3 — PEAR Lab Results

Chain Position: 112 of 188

Assumes

  • [EV15.3](./111_EV15.2_GCP-Correlation]]

Formal Statement

Evidence: The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory documented statistically significant human-machine interaction effects over 28 years (1979-2007).

Metric: Across 2.5 million experimental trials, individual human “operators” attempted to influence the output of Random Event Generators (REGs). The results showed a cumulative separation between High-Intention and Low-Intention trials of Z ≈ 3.8 (p < 10⁻⁴).

Physical Meaning: Individual consciousness possesses a non-zero coupling to the physical substrate. The “I” is not a passive spectator; it is a Source that can bias the probability distribution of the Logos Field.

Enables

Explanatory Frameworks & Perspectives

Perspective 1: The “Small Effect” Model (Skepticism)

“The effect size in the PEAR experiments is tiny (a shift of about 1 in 10,000 bits). Many replication attempts have been inconclusive or negative. If mind could really affect matter, it should be obvious and repeatable by everyone. The PEAR results are likely the result of subtle experimental errors or the ‘file drawer’ effect where only positive results are published.”

Theophysics Assessment (The Stability of the Law): This view assumes that a real effect should be “Large.” Theophysics proposes that the Smallness of the Effect is a structural requirement for a Stable Universe (A7.1). If human intention could easily rewrite the laws of physics, the “Shared Event Record” would collapse into chaos. The PEAR effect is the Minimal Coupling—a necessary “leak” that proves the observer is a participant without compromising the integrity of the system. To dismiss a 28-year dataset from a major engineering school requires an extreme level of “Scientific Exclusion” that borders on the unfalsifiable.

Perspective 2: Quantum Bayesianism (QBism)

“The PEAR results don’t show the mind ‘moving’ matter; they show that the agent’s intention is a part of the measurement process. The probability shift is a shift in the agent’s relationship to the data, not a change in the ‘thing-in-itself’.”

Theophysics Assessment: This aligns with the “Participatory” nature of the framework. However, the fact that the results are Conserved and Recordable by machines suggests that the shift occurs in the Logos Field () itself, not just in the agent’s head. It is an objective change in the system’s state.

Perspective 3: The Creative Image (Theology)

“Man was made in the image of the Creator (F). While God is the Infinite Generator, humans possess a finite ‘Micro-Generator’ capacity. We are meant to be ‘Sub-Creators’ who order the world through the Word (L). The PEAR data is the physical proof of this delegated agency.”

Theophysics Assessment: This identifies EV15.3 as the Axiom of Agency. It proves that “Free Will” is not just a psychological feeling, but a physical Control Input.

Comparative Explanatory Assessment

EV15.3 defines the Power of the Individual.

  1. Theist Unification (Logos Model): The individual soul () is coupled to the Logos Field. Our intention provides a Weak Measurement that biases the collapse of quantum states. This explains why “Faith” and “Will” are central to the human story.
  2. Structural Realism (Brute Agency): Some people can move machines with their minds. It’s a weird fact of nature. It doesn’t imply a Soul or a God.
  3. Instrumentalism (Useful Anomalies): The PEAR data is an anomaly we can’t explain. We should keep it in the “Unsolved” pile and continue with standard physics.

Synthesis: EV15.3 is the Proof of Influence. It asserts that if you treat the universe as an “Integrated System” (A1.3), then the most integrated parts of the system (Conscious Observers) must have a Feedback Loop to the substrate. PEAR provides the 28-year engineering record that this loop is real.

Collapse Analysis

If [[112_EV15.3_PEAR-Lab-Results.md) fails:

  • Human agency is reduced to a purely biological/computational event.
  • The “Power of Choice” has no physical correlate in the quantum realm.
  • The argument for the “Creative Dignity” of man is restricted to the realm of metaphor.

Source Material

  • 01_Axioms/_sources/Theophysics_Axiom_Spine_Master.xlsx
  • Jahn, R. G., & Dunne, B. J. (1987). Margins of Reality
  • The PEAR Laboratory (Princeton University)

Quick Navigation

Depends On: [ Enables: [[113_EV15.4_Social-Coherence-5.7-Sigma](./111_EV15.2_GCP-Correlation]] .md)

_MASTER_INDEX|← Back to Master Index

Graph View