Slashdot Mirror
Random Number Generator That Sees Into the Future
hackajar writes "Red Nova news has an interesting article about a random number generating black box that may be able to see into the future. From the article: "according to a growing band of top scientists, this box has quite extraordinary powers. It is, they claim, the 'eye' of a machine that appears capable of peering into the future and predicting major world events"."
You mean I don't need to subscribe to Slashdot to see the Mysterious Future?
Then maybe it can help me to win a few more Rock Paper Scissors games too.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Or do you people not listen to Art Bell? You should. You'll learn a lot.
01010101011010111111000000000111110000000000000000 0000000000000000000
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
If it can sense future events, that would make it less random, right? To me, that almost sounds like pre-determined events (how far into the future this pre-determination is good for, you decide), so it really isn't "random".
"If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?" --Seymour Cray
I predict that this post will hit +5 funny!!
:-(
No?
/. needs a "trivially debunked hogwash" category. This belongs with the "battery stickers" story from a few weeks ago.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It just spit out the number 42. I guess there really is something to this little black box.
is this the machine Bush was using to predict terror alerts? not very accurate.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
If they can demonstrate a link between people thinking and a random number generator in a controlled environment, then they can go claim the Randi prize (randi.org)... It's a million dollars, should be worth their time.
I doubt they'll be collecting it.
Pat Niemeyer
That's why it's a black box. If we knew how it worked then it'd be a magic white box...
I also thought slashdot was fooled again, or at least this was a humor article.
It's not.
Red Nova appears to be a valid news site, and the Princeton University link at the bottom is the real thing, describing just what the article talked about.
You know, we all like to laugh at so called "psychic phenomena" or pseudoscience. I know, I do it too. But this is rather stunning...it's a Princeton University project, run by a group of scientists who respect the scientific method, who are trying to do their best at sounding humble while making extraordinary claims. The only question is if they actually have the data to back it up (some graphs would be nice).
Progress in science means shattering accepted theories. If this is what it seems to be, then the possibility of a scientific revolution, at the very least a whole new field of science, seems to be at hand.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
BTW, how in the world is this NOT a "laugh, it's funny" article?
Because it's pseudo-science that's trying to be serious. Which can be a dangerous thing, although probably isn't in this case.
I stopped reading when I read this:
"The laws of chance dictate that the generators should churn out equal numbers of ones and zeros - which would be represented by a nearly flat line on the graph."
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite. If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other. Over time, the percentage disparity will decrease to near zero, but the total numerical disparity is likely to increase.
Similarly and extending from that, there is no law of anything that says that if you have a long series of 1's that it's more likely that your next number will be a 0. The "law of averages" is commonly cited here but there's really no such law.
Wikipedia has a nice little article that explains this, though I highly recommend the book Innumeracy for a lot more detail and an entertaining read to boot (that's a straight Amazon link, not a referral - I don't care where you buy it, just read it.)
I predict that this story will appear again on the front page of Slashdot within the next 48 hours.
Regards,
Karnak the Magnificent
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Geeks will appreciate that you can download the raw data from the Global Consciousness Project and analyze it yourself. They even provide you a head start in your programming with their C++ package. In addition, there is a realtime driven display coded in Java, and "data driven music."
;)
The entire premise behind the Global Consciousness Project is that the Noosphere exists, and that, when a large amount of people are focused on the same thing it effects things in ways that are difficult to measure. There are dozens of these eggs (64) all around the world returning truly random data to the princeton server, which is inside a special casing to protect it from any extraneous waves/radiation/youname it. Their data purport, and indeed seem, to show that during times when many people are focused on the same thing, this random data is suddenly "less random". This typically means that when people start hearing about a globally impacting event on the news, the data becomes less random.
Using current methods it is impossible to prove that this is what they are measuring. But the data goes to show that they are measuring something. If you don't believe me or the news article, download the data and analyze it yourself, and if you're feeling the tingling of those psychic wavelengths, you can even register a prediction of your own
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite. If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other. Over time, the percentage disparity will decrease to near zero, but the total numerical disparity is likely to increase.
I can see into the future. You will get a 5, Informative for making this obvious mathematical observation.
I feel a disturbance in the force. It's as if a million random number generators cried out all at once ... and became silent.
I would think that one could divine just about anything from a field of random data; events past, present and future will fit just fine. Seems a like the perfect machine to give you a glimpse of exactly what you want to see.
Believing in superstitious quackery like this black box has serious ramifications.
Perhaps you've heard of the scientific method?
It sounds like quakery, but so did flight and travel to the moon 150 years ago.
The appropriate stance is "I'll believe it when they prove it", not "that can't be true." Rabid atheism is no more scientific than wicca.
For more information on REGs, here's a link to Dr. Nelson's website: http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/
Consider for a moment that there exists a god. He (she or it, whatever) is basically our caretaker, maybe even our creator. Here's the deal though, nobody really knows anything about him, and I'd wager to say anyone who thinks they know anything is pretty fscking arrogant. What if (yes, this is just a theory), god doesn't really have great influential power in the universe (i.e. can't make the moon fall out of the sky in one night, or hurl the earth at the sun, etc), but can only subtly manipulate it through chaotic interactions. If this were true, wouldn't that mean patterns in chaos could very well be the face of god? It might even make fortune telling by random chance (tarot, rune casting, coin flipping, etc) legitimate. Assuming it were true and provable to be true, really it's just an interesting idea. Something like this story though, assuming it's true, makes it a bit more plausible.
One thing that would be interesting to see is if location affects these Eggs. The article mentioned the Eggs notice global events. I wonder if you put an Egg in a small town whether or not it would detect something like a murder or a natural disaster local to the town. Might be something for these guys to try.
It turns out you can watch these eggs live over at the It's fascinating stuff, although it feels a bit overly dramatic. It keeps making heartbeat sounds, and whenever a statistical deviation exceeds a certain boundary it goes 'ping'.
So not only is it a website that predicts the future, it's a website that goes 'ping' that predicts the future. what more could a geek want?
I want the fire back.
Who knows, maybe this will be some sort of evidence of us existing in a simulated world. Perhaps one where the people running it wish to know how people perceive what everyone thinks up to a major disaster. The simulation might need to increase its recording rate of people's minds leading up the the event. Or whatever. Just a thought.
Wtf? Brownian motion, Bose-Einstein statistics, explanation of photoeffect, special and general relativity theories were developed and finished long before 1932 - the year Einstein accepted the offer from Princeton.
Anyone care to elabote what great discoveries he did while in Princeton, and how is his name even remotely related to this idiotic story? Who gives money to these lunatics? Next thing you know they will be studying astrology, alchemy and witchcraft in Princeton. Really sad, if this not a hoax.
Wow. I guess it's time to tell Princeton that "Capt'n Hector" says they're wrong so it must be true!
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
I stumbled across this project years ago as I was researching "real" random number generation for encryption work. I found a very peculiar disclaimer from some manufacturers that claimed that the output would not be random is used in Psi research.
From that I found multiple pointers to a book, Margins of Reality, by Jahn and Dunne. It details research done at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab. They basically run millions of RNG trials with people trying to influence the result, and they get pretty much statistically provable effects, but at a very low level (something like a 5 parts per 10,000 deviation from the norm.) What's freaky is it's so consistent they've gotten to the point that they can tell you which test subject is influencing things by the results. Very freaky stuff.
Anyway, even if you're a die-hard prove-it-to-me science buff, the research results described in the book will really make you ponder how well we understand things, particularly RNGs and rigorous test procedures, if nothing else.
Red Nova usually has good articles, but every once in awhile, one shows up that belies evidence of lack of scientific rigour. This is the case here.
An example (from the article:)
It was a preposterous idea at the time. The results, however, were stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained.
This sentence is prejudicial because it biases the results as being "stunning", without describing who finds the results stunning.
"Never satisfactorily explained" also presumes that someone finds it worthy of needing explanation.
Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could influence the machine and produce significant fluctuations on the graph, 'forcing it' to produce unequal numbers of 'heads' or 'tails'.
"Proved"? Pretty strong words with no supporting detail. Once I read sentences like this, I discount an article as being scientifically unfounded.
In response to the parent post:
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite.
I believe you're misinterpreting the laws of chance.
If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other.
Significant as a percentage? Unlikely.
Over time, the percentage disparity will decrease to near zero, but the total numerical disparity is likely to increase.
This is a trivial statement. If n flips has m total disparities, n+x flips will have between m and m+x disparities. It is therefore impossible for the total number of disparities to decrease, and almost guaranteed that it will increase.
The only significant measure of disparity is that of percentile disparity. And if you measure percentile disparity on a scale equivalent to the number of events being measured, it will in fact appear to be a nearly flat line on the graph.
The thing that bothers me about this "experiment" is that it presumes to assert that people can control a machine that generates random events, without describing the algorithm by which those random events are produced. Trying to simulate true randomness (indeed, what is random?) is a huge topic within math, statistics, and computer science; yet, it's not mentioned once within the article.
Classic case of weak correlation.
Worse, the correlation suggests the causation post-facto. Nobody even guesses there will be a correlation until there's an effect. And if there's no effect, nobody discounts the box's output.
Sad. Innumerate. Stupid.
The only question is if they actually have the data to back it up (some graphs would be nice).
I would like detailed instructions on how to construct a stream of random numbers with behaviors that correlate to outside events as they describe, so that I can repeat their experiments myself and see if I can reproduce the same effect. Tabletop reproduction isn't always possible in science (e.g. historical sciences like archaeology, paleontology, cosmology- remember that, you creationists) but in this case reproduction of results should be easy. (If this were real.)
At the very least I want to know how to generate a stream of random numbers that reproduces this effect, how to recognize a prediction when it arrives in the stream, and how to assign a P-value for associations between random stream events and real world events. Unless we move past the sort of ex post facto "predictions" of past events, there is nothing new here. It looks like a repetition of work already done by Nostradamus.
Try reading the papers of the people running the damn research program. They do have several websites on it.
You are passing judgement on their work only on the basis of a PopSCI level article written for a 9th grade audiance.
Most, if not all, of your issues are addresed on the project sites.
If I were this guy, I would claim that women's breasts get firmer right before big events, and ask for a million-dollar grant to study hundreds of women. If you are going to be a quack, then go allll the way.
Table-ized A.I.
Whenever something mentions Diana as something that could be predicted as an event of the same importance as 9/11 I sort of tune out.
It is I think a paranormal defense mechanism employed to prevent bloodshed.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
"The thing that bothers me about this "experiment" is that it presumes to assert that people can control a machine that generates random events, without describing the algorithm by which those random events are produced..."
I believe their algorithm for producing random numbers was sound - it was based on completely unpredictable world events of extreme importance. Oh, wait...
Perhaps you've never heard of quantum mechanics? I believe it was Einstein who coined the phrase 'spooky action at a distance' to describe quantum entanglement of particles.
Someone should seriously consider modding your post as flamebait. It's a FAR stretch from investigating a non-trivial co-incidence of recorded data and historic events to make the jump to witches and warlocks running the US (though they might do a better job than the current High Priest of Crawford)
While organizations like CSICOP can be valuable in verifying or debunking claims that seem unbelievable, it seems foolish (if one has RTFA) to insist right off that it is superstitious quackery fit for debunking.
A true scientist would remain open the possibility until it is proven or disproven. That is what we call a 'theory'. By insistently persecuting anything we don't yet understand, one lowers oneself to the level of certain residents of 17th Century Salem.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Princeton has had an "alternative" sciences department for decades: PEAR, most often cited for their research into remote viewing. They consistantly veer on the side of quackery, preferring to dismiss any elements of their "science" that categorically refute their findings in favour of a more popular conclusion, albeit confused and absurd.
They don't have a theory as to this can happen, but let's ignore that.
It's really sad how people can ignore the roots of science. To use a simple example, man KNEW about gravity before he had a theory about how it works. That's how science operates. You draw conclusions based on experimental results.
I'm not sure what causes people to be so immediately defensive. Maybe it's fright that everything people think they know could be turned upside down. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote from Donald Knuth that kind of encapsulates this whole discussion: "The fact is that everything we learn reveals more things that we do not understand."
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Except they shouldn't be straight lines at all. They should take random directions all the time. Sometimes even very big ones. A flat line is one of the least random things produced in the world. If GC existed according to how REGs worked, atomic clocks would randomly lose percision around major events.
I mean a scientist is quoted as saying "Our data shows clearly that the chances of getting these results by fluke are one million to one against." I would actually place the chance much much lower, I mean a million to one is nothing really. The odds of 30 coin flips in any order is a million to one. The real problem is prediction. The question is whether the model can predict into the future what events will cause blips and the magnitude of the event.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
Yeah like slashdotting the "eggs".
OK, 65 eggs, so we'll use the extra one as a parity bit. Everyone concentrate on the following binary number really really hard:
1010011 1101100 1100001 1110011 1101000 1000100 1101111 1110100 1
Someone had to do it.
Omigod..... I'm PSYCHIC!!!!
I think I'll just go to sleep now ... before I get more tired.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Ah ha. Look at the source at the bottom.
...' at the begining of the piece to make it more credible.
Source: Daily Mail; London (UK)
It may be that Red Nova is a valid news site, but they should really check the status of their sources. The Mail will run just about any sensational piece of b*ll*cks doing the rounds. They are not the sort of organ that would want to cloud the reader's faith in the paranormal with any of that cynical questioning. Please insert the phrase 'Top scientists believe
Click here and search for "Crop Circles", "MI6" or "UFO".
Any stream of random numbers will work. If a *special* stream is required, then it's not random...
No, this is incorrect. There exists an infinite variety of streams of random numbers, and not all of them have the same properties, nor are they of the same quality, nor would all random number sources normally be expected to react to outside events (like someone coming to the lab and "concentrating") in the same way. Random numbers can be gotten from a radioactive source (which might be one of thousands of different isotopes), rolling dice, unstable electronic circuits, dripping faucets, the weather, etc. All can map cleanly to a given range and can usually pass all tests used to determine whether or not a sequence is truly random. The pseudorandom numbers that are commonly used in computing (for example) are generated by linear congruential methods and they fail these tests; k-tuples of these numbers form a lattice structure when you plot them in k-dimensional space. If any stream of truly random numbers will work, then any of these sources can be used to predict the future!
Now granted, this is all solidly in the realm of nonsense, so this discussion is already a bit esoteric. But if you seriously think that these guys are right and that outside events are reflected in their random number streams, then the question arises, is there a connection between these human-world events and the random number generator they're using, or is the connection between those events and the random numbers themselves- just by virtue of their randomness?
I say it's between outside events and the particular generator being used, because that (although wildly implausible) is the weaker of these two claims- which are both whoppers. If the prediction comes from the numbers themselves, then the claim being made here is a much, much stronger claim- that any random process is somehow connected to major events in the human world. Now that's the sort of magic I stopped believing in by the time I was 4. (I don't buy the weaker claim either, but I have to acknowledge that it has an infinitely greater chance of being true than the stronger claim.)
Just because something sounds crazy, doesn't mean it is. People from 100 years ago, if told about MRIs, CAT scans, GeoSyncSats, GPS, Sat Phones, Computers, the Internet, and Microwave ovens would say you are crazy and such things would never be possible.
Nobody plopped an MRI machine into a barber shop 100 years ago and said it would give a picture of your insides. X-rays did exist 100 years ago, were subjected to some high quality scientific inquiry and rapidly yielded their secrets (and some Nobel prizes). The same for those other devices - none of them came into existence before the physical principles they're based on were understood-- they're all products of engineering (application of known principles to produce something of use) and were developed well after the physical principles they depend on were discovered and explained.
I spend/have spent a fair bit of time surfing the crackpot line (that's where the fun is) and I'm pretty skeptical of this one. Sure, it deserves a good poking with a sharp stick (the foundation of good experimental science), but I doubt this will stand up to it.
Here's what the Skeptic Report has to say about the "Global Consciousness Project".
I'd like to see how many "special" sequences they had which were NOT followed by an event they deemed special.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite. If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other. Over time, the percentage disparity will decrease to near zero, but the total numerical disparity is likely to increase.
The article may very well be about pseudo-science. However trying to counter it with pseudo-reasoning and confusing distinct, well-defined statistical properties doesn't advance the cause of science. In fact it looks not only bad but desperate.
My professor in statisitics would probably have pitched an eraser at you for suggesting what amounts to an oxymoronic "high probability of the improbable." If the probability is 1:1,000,000, then in one million experiments there is a finite probability (1:1,000,000) that you may see the event once, and a lesser finite probability you would see it more than once. If something improbable turns up "significantly" as you phrase it then you check to see if the dice are honest.
In fact, the mean value of a normally distributed series of random numbers should trend toward a constant value. In the case of runs of 0s and 1s, it should trend toward 0.5 and approximate it more closely as the experiment runs.
The variance should tend to increase as less probable values fill the wings of the bell curve. The longer the series of random values the more nearly normal that trend should be and the greater the potential variance may be, since with a longer experiment you can actually acquire less probable runs that simply could not occur earlier. For instance you need to toss a coin a minimum of 20 times to have even the possibility of achieving 1:1,000,000 odds (1:1048576, actually 2^20). You would need to toss a good many more times than that before you could legitmately begin to worry of a 1:1,000,000 occurence did not show up.
That's how Los Vegas makes a living. The rubes always hope that the improbable will kiss them on the neck. In fact nothing you say actually contradicts the quote you are trying to criticize. They are discussing the mean results while you are talking about the variance.
The simplest explanation for their "correlation" is simply coincidence of highly improbable runs temporarily skewed the data. Remember that the experiment has been running for years so some really improbable runs are possible. They need a lot more disasters before they can actually test an argument based on a statistical improbability.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Well, no. Occam's razor does not assume that the universe behaves simply.
Occam's razor states that you should not needlessly multiply entities. What does this mean? It means if you have a theory that "things move when you hit them", and you have another theory that needlessly states "things moves when you hit them and the moon is waning", and both theories are supported by experimental evidence, then you should throw away the needlessly complex version involving the moon. The extra complexity adds nothing to the value of the theory.
You cannot use Occam's razor to dismiss a complex theory. There is no assumption by Occam that complex theories are wrong, or that simpler theories are right. That's not what it means and anybody who attempts to use it that way is simply wrong.
"It sounds like quakery, but so did flight and travel to the moon 150 years ago."
I can always tell we've not evolved as a species and are still thinking at the baboon level when I hear comments like this.
Flight was not regarded as quakery by those who understood some simple science. It was regarded as quakery by the lay person who doesn't understand much of anything. It was obvious that if birds could fly then there must have been some method by which we could construct a machine to also do so. Birds don't fly by some strange unseen spiritual energy that we'll never figure out. No, flight was merely an engineering problem as are most all other things that science has "figured out". In the real world, if you can solve it, using logic and deductive reasoning, then you can do it. It will take work, in the form of many hours of labor and thought, something the common idiot seems not inclined to do, but can lead us places that we've never been before. It still amazes me to this day that many pseudo science freaks don't understand what energy is. They speak of this thing or that thing as having energy but are completely oblivious to the fact that energy is a "difference" between to opposites. They can't seem to name what those opposites are when they say something like "she seems to have much spiritual energy". You might as well say the sky is blue.
Going to the moon was also an engineering problem. There were material solutions to every problem encountered on our quest to fulfill that dream. If you understand how things work, then that knowledge is "enabling". The knowledge allows you to progress into the future. It gives you wings to fly with. Ordinary folk don't get it, so they continue to "believe" in fairy tails and pots of gold at the end of rainbows. To be constructive you must do work. You must work to generate order, be constructive, in the face of entropy, the disorder that flows and pushes you down stream. Don't let the stream carry you. It is harder to create, than it is to destroy, or go with the flow. Being lazy is a sign of the devil so to speak. Belief is lazyness because you aren't using your mind to figure things out, you are just accepting something that someone has told you is true. Only you can decide whether things are true or not based on your own experiences.
Be skeptical when people tell you things that you haven't a clue about. Go to school. Read science and engineering books.
Honestly, the line that spoke volumes to me was the line that Carl Sagan used in Cosmos... "We... accept the products of science, but reject its methods". If we could just make people who believe in crap live in the old world without science for a few years, I'm sure they would change their tune. Alas, hypocrisy is rampant these days. I'm sure I'll die before our species grows beyond such thinking.
Quite a few, according to this interesting, skeptical report
Good -- because, as we all know...
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance"
-Robert R. Coveyou, Oak Bridge National Laboratory
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
This sounds like a Jewish telegram
They read "start worrying, details to follow."
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
For those of you that have not spent some time reading Knuth's Vol.2, there is an extensive analysis of what "randomness" is and how to get it. Clearly, a deterministic machine (=chip) cannot produce really random sequences. I did not bother to check the actual working details of those machines, but I would say that the only truly random phenomena are quantum phenomena and only these would be acceptable in a serious scientific study. Sure, modern chips get away by generating random-like sequences that are good enough to simulate true randomness for most purposes. This applies to HW random generators in most PCs. However, they are not, in principle, acceptable as real random number generators (even if they are equally well suited for applications).
From a theoretical standpoint a truly random quantum system is immune to interference, while HW random number generators use an external (to the system) source of randomness, accepted to represent noise. This is the actual approach used in the kernel's /dev/random that draws data from various external events. It has been shown, under some circumstances to be less than reliable, because the event is external wrt to the kernel but still inside our frame of reference (e.g. we control the keyboard and the ethernet port and, potentially, the power fluctuations etc etc).
Another significant point to consider is this: a truly random sequence is by definition infinite and it contains all possible subsequences of finite length. In an infinite series of coin tosses we MUST get all finitely long sequences of heads-only or tails-only. This means that given a long enough random subsequence (like the one that is produced by this machine), we will always be able to choose parts of it that are highly unlikely and statistically significantly different. Given that (a) every day something "important" happens somewhere and (b) we can always choose non-random "looking" parts of the sequence the credibility of this experiment is quite doubtful.
A proper experimental design would not associate (chosen!) events with (chosen!) subsequences, but would instead prove that the source itself is systematically non-random due to an unknown cause of interference. When all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce traditional sources of interference, we would be open to creative speculation about its source.
Another way to approach this is to make "a priori" (very important!) choices of "trigger" events and then assign very specific, "a priori" defined, time limits to the analysis. E.g. violent death of more than 1000 people in less than 1 hour is accepted as a trigger and we only correlate this to a contiguous 2h of data surrounding and including the event. The prior choice of experimental trigger conditions and rules makes a world of difference to the reliability of the test.
P.
And there's plenty of stuff that people believed in, or still believe in, that are still wrong. Ether, the heart being the centre of emotion, the world being flat.
I haven't seen any convincing data, the people running this project pick and choose 'world' events as they decide it.
For example:
"Radin gave several examples of how GCP had detected 'global consciousness'. One was the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted of double-murder. We were shown a graph where - no doubt about that - the data formed a nice ascending curve in the minutes after the pre-show started, with cameras basically waiting for the verdict to be read.
And yes, there was a nice, ascending curve in the minutes after the verdict was read.
However, about half an hour before the verdict, there was a similar curve ascending for no apparent reason. Radin's quick explanation before moving on to the next slide?
'I don't know what happened there.'
It was not to be the last time we heard that answer."
And if upward curves start before the 'world' event taking place? It's collective pre-cognition folks! And how much before the event counts as pre-cognition? As much (or as little) as these 'experimeters' require.
Look, even the director of the project himself says: "...this idea is really an aesthetic speculation. I don't think we have real grounds to claim that the statistics and graphs representing the data prove the existence of a global consciousness. On the other hand, we do have strong evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data..."
That's the real telling point: "...should be random data...". I bet some in-depth tests might show the 'eggs' are simply not entirely random.
Did he inhale?
how we can compare the World Trade Center destruction to the tsunami disaster. After all, around 2,000 people died at the World Trade Center. Indonesia alone is reporting 241,687 dead and missing. Sri Lanka is reporting "more than 30,000" dead. India is reporting "over 14,000" dead, although this is from an old article and is most certainly out of date. A rough estimate, I would guess, is that approximately a third of million people died in the tsunami, making the death (and other devastation) from it have the same proportion to the WTC as the WTC has to Princess Diana's death. This does not in any way lessen the significance of the WTC, nor of the Princess Di's death.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What they claim: When lots of people think the same thing it makes "random event generators" give "less random" output.
When pressed about evidence working against his theories (e.g. assigning meaning to some data spies, but not others), global conciousness proponent Dan Radin replied: "I don't know what happened there."
This is the scientific thing to say -- if you don't know, say you don't know.
However, assigning meaning to some spikes, but not others, tends to erode one's confidence in the assignment of causality.
See Skeptic Report for critical analysis.
-kgj
-kgj
Cellular Automata can be used to generate almost perfectly random numbers (much more random than even some of the most tried-and-true methods), but that technique was not being used in the 70's, when this supposedly started.
.
My guess is that since they describe RNG's as "black boxes", they are using hardware RNG's, which use the fluctuations derived from an apparently random 'natural' process, like electric (resistor noise, by far the most common) and radioactive decay.
But I find it interesting and ironic that each of the events they have talked about predicting in many cases have associated electrical phenomenon!
They even mentioned it in the article. A billion people watching Princess Di's funeral, or 9/11 -- ok, so a billion tv sets around the world turn on, and if your RNG is plugged into the wall . . . is it going to affect it? I dunno, but if it's a resistor-based RNG . . . the OJ Simpson trial, ditto. People are gonna start tuning in before the verdict; this produces, at the very least, an ELECTRICAL EVENT that is likely detectable anywhere on the power grid.
With showing the person slides of pictures, and the random number fluctuations happening prior to the person seeing the picture . . . um . . . is there any electrical machinery plugged into the wall that takes an action to ready/display the next slide? Wouldn't that be funny, now . .
And, of course, a tsunami produces measurable electrical phenomena as well. I don't know if it produces electrical phenomena in advance, of course, and it would seem that if that was the case we would be able to use it to predict seismic events
I don't know anything about whether fluctuations in resistor/semiconductor-based RNG's can happen as a result of electrical phenomenon, but I think that the fact that the article makes no mention of attempts to screen for electrical interference, to detect correlating electrical/field events, or to isolate the RNG's in some way is a good indicator that these guys aren't trying very hard to play devil's advocate.