Online Retrokinesis

[Lucianarchy]

Here's an example of a small 6run online experiment I did today:
Anyone else like to have a go? You record your logs with them, to keep an ongoing z score.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/

Dt / Time Expt Hits z Chance
2004/7/2 13:41 clockface 513/1024 0.06 2
2004/7/2 13:44 clockface 513/1024 0.06 2
2004/7/2 13:50 clockface 521/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/2 13:56 clockface 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 14:01 pendulum 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/2 14:06 bellcurve 523/1024 0.69 4

Total hits 3079/6144
Z score 0.18

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Here's an example of a small 6run online experiment I did today:
Anyone else like to have a go? You record your logs with them, to keep an ongoing z score.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/

Dt / Time Expt Hits z Chance
2004/7/2 13:41 clockface 513/1024 0.06 2
2004/7/2 13:44 clockface 513/1024 0.06 2
2004/7/2 13:50 clockface 521/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/2 13:56 clockface 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 14:01 pendulum 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/2 14:06 bellcurve 523/1024 0.69 4

Total hits 3079/6144
Z score 0.18 I feel like tacos. A taco would really hit the spot. Tacos it is.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Here's an example of a small 6run online experiment I did today:
Anyone else like to have a go? You record your logs with them, to keep an ongoing z score.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/

Dt / Time Expt Hits z Chance
2004/7/2 13:41 clockface 513/1024 0.06 2
2004/7/2 13:44 clockface 513/1024 0.06 2
2004/7/2 13:50 clockface 521/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/2 13:56 clockface 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 14:01 pendulum 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/2 14:06 bellcurve 523/1024 0.69 4

Total hits 3079/6144
Z score 0.18

I did the Bell Curve experiment, where I tried to influence it to the right. Here are my results:

Date / Time Experiment Goal Mode Sound? Hits z-score Chance
2004/7/2 15:28 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 15:31 bellcurve 1 Record 542/1024 1.88 31
2004/7/2 15:34 bellcurve 1 Record 515/1024 0.19 2
2004/7/2 15:36 bellcurve 1 Record 544/1024 2.00 41
2004/7/2 15:39 bellcurve 1 Record 497/1024 0.94 5
2004/7/2 15:41 bellcurve 1 Record 533/1024 1.31 10
2004/7/2 15:44 bellcurve 1 Record 512/1024 0.00 2
2004/7/2 15:50 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
Total 4155/8192 1.30

[T'ai Chi]

I'll do this for the next hour and report the results.

[T'ai Chi]

Ack, I had other stuff to do, but here are my additional results:

Date / Time Experiment Goal Mode Sound? Hits z-score Chance
2004/7/2 15:28 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 15:31 bellcurve 1 Record 542/1024 1.88 31
2004/7/2 15:34 bellcurve 1 Record 515/1024 0.19 2
2004/7/2 15:36 bellcurve 1 Record 544/1024 2.00 41
2004/7/2 15:39 bellcurve 1 Record 497/1024 0.94 5
2004/7/2 15:41 bellcurve 1 Record 533/1024 1.31 10
2004/7/2 15:44 bellcurve 1 Record 512/1024 0.00 2
2004/7/2 15:50 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 15:54 pendulum 1 Record 526/1024 0.88 5
2004/7/2 15:57 clockface 1 Record 529/1024 1.06 7
2004/7/2 16:04 clockface 1 Record 512/1024 0.00 2
2004/7/2 16:06 clockface 1 Record 522/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/2 16:08 clockface 1 Record 501/1024 0.69 4
2004/7/2 16:11 clockface 0 Record 501/1024 0.69 4
Total 7246/14336 1.30

[Lucianarchy]

Cool. The Bellcurve seems the 'easiest' to influence, imo. Have you tried to do control runs, without 'influence'? It does show, for me, the controls run with less 'hits'. Interesting.

[Lucianarchy]

Cool. Still seem to be going well on the bellcurve:

522/1024 0.62 (z) , current overall z of .20

Don't worry, i won't just keep updating here. Just quite impressed with the 'bellcurve' influence versus control.

Claus, I'd be interersted to see your scores, just to see if there's any sheep/goat effect. Remember to record them with the lab via your email address.

[steenkh]

Be careful that two of you are not influencing the random number generator at the same time ...

[Ratman_tf]

The only two goal options are left and right. How do we know what an uninfluenced session looks like?

[MRC_Hans]

Ran a couple of rounds, selecting left or right according to coin throw. Seems that what you select influences the result (I did not look at the screen while the test ran), so the software must be making some bias.

Ran a couple of rounds, alternatingly concentrating and ignoring it. No significant difference.

None of the results were stastisticially significant.

Lucianarchy, do you have a thesis on:

1) How I should be able to influence a random generator, when I don't even know where on the planet it is, let alone how it works?

2) How my influence should be singled out among the many other people who might be trying to influence it at the same time?

Hans

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So this is retropsychokinesis because the random bit stream is generated before the experiment starts?

~~ Paul

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes. The result is predetermined before you even click start.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The result is predetermined before you even click start.

Exactly!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Ran a couple of rounds, selecting left or right according to coin throw. Seems that what you select influences the result (I did not look at the screen while the test ran), so the software must be making some bias.

Ran a couple of rounds, alternatingly concentrating and ignoring it. No significant difference.

None of the results were stastisticially significant.

Lucianarchy, do you have a thesis on:

1) How I should be able to influence a random generator, when I don't even know where on the planet it is, let alone how it works?

2) How my influence should be singled out among the many other people who might be trying to influence it at the same time?

Hans

See above.

[T'ai Chi]

I just figured out they have an Express setup page, where you can fill out the form, then run the experiment, then bookmark that page, so when you choose that bookmark, all your settings will already be filled in. It makes for much faster experimentation. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Ok, here are my updated results:

Date / Time Experiment Goal Mode Sound? Hits z-score Chance
2004/7/2 15:28 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 15:31 bellcurve 1 Record 542/1024 1.88 31
2004/7/2 15:34 bellcurve 1 Record 515/1024 0.19 2
2004/7/2 15:36 bellcurve 1 Record 544/1024 2.00 41
2004/7/2 15:39 bellcurve 1 Record 497/1024 0.94 5
2004/7/2 15:41 bellcurve 1 Record 533/1024 1.31 10
2004/7/2 15:44 bellcurve 1 Record 512/1024 0.00 2
2004/7/2 15:50 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/2 15:54 pendulum 1 Record 526/1024 0.88 5
2004/7/2 15:57 clockface 1 Record 529/1024 1.06 7
2004/7/2 16:04 clockface 1 Record 512/1024 0.00 2
2004/7/2 16:06 clockface 1 Record 522/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/2 16:08 clockface 1 Record 501/1024 0.69 4
2004/7/2 16:11 clockface 0 Record 501/1024 0.69 4
2004/7/3 5:02 bellcurve 1 Record 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/3 5:12 pendulum 1 Record 504/1024 0.50 3
2004/7/3 5:17 pendulum 1 Record 509/1024 0.19 2
2004/7/3 5:19 pendulum 0 Record 477/1024 2.19 64
2004/7/3 5:21 pendulum 0 Record 505/1024 0.44 3
2004/7/3 5:24 pendulum 1 Record 526/1024 0.88 5
2004/7/3 5:25 pendulum 1 Record 507/1024 0.31 3
2004/7/3 5:28 bellcurve 1 Record 522/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/3 5:30 bellcurve 1 Record 505/1024 0.44 3
2004/7/3 5:39 bellcurve 1 Record 514/1024 0.12 2
2004/7/3 5:50 bellcurve 1 Record 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/3 5:52 bellcurve 1 Record 499/1024 0.81 5
2004/7/3 5:59 bellcurve 1 Record 499/1024 0.81 5
2004/7/3 6:01 bellcurve 1 Record 526/1024 0.88 5
2004/7/3 6:03 bellcurve 1 Record 506/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/3 6:04 bellcurve 1 Record 515/1024 0.19 2
2004/7/3 6:06 bellcurve 1 Record 495/1024 1.06 7
2004/7/3 6:08 bellcurve 1 Record 522/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/3 6:11 bellcurve 1 Record 536/1024 1.50 14
2004/7/3 6:12 bellcurve 1 Record 514/1024 0.12 2
2004/7/3 6:15 bellcurve 1 Record 495/1024 1.06 7
2004/7/3 6:18 pendulum 1 Record 530/1024 1.12 7
2004/7/3 6:20 pendulum 1 Record 472/1024 2.50 148
2004/7/3 6:21 pendulum 1 Record 491/1024 1.31 10
2004/7/3 6:24 pendulum 1 Record 519/1024 0.44 3
2004/7/3 6:37 pendulum 1 Record 518/1024 0.38 3
2004/7/3 16:35 bellcurve 1 Record 502/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/3 16:37 bellcurve 1 Record 527/1024 0.94 5
2004/7/3 16:40 bellcurve 1 Record 508/1024 0.25 2
2004/7/3 16:44 bellcurve 1 Record 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/3 16:47 bellcurve 1 Record 531/1024 1.19 8
2004/7/3 16:53 bellcurve 1 Record 517/1024 0.31 3
2004/7/3 16:55 bellcurve 1 Record 520/1024 0.50 3
2004/7/3 16:58 bellcurve 1 Record 517/1024 0.31 3
2004/7/3 17:05 bellcurve 1 Record 503/1024 0.56 3
2004/7/3 17:07 bellcurve 1 Record 500/1024 0.75 4
2004/7/3 17:09 bellcurve 1 Record 502/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/3 17:12 bellcurve 1 Record 507/1024 0.31 3
2004/7/3 17:15 bellcurve 1 Record 514/1024 0.12 2
2004/7/3 17:20 bellcurve 1 Record 516/1024 0.25 2
2004/7/3 17:22 bellcurve 1 Record 469/1024 2.69 254
2004/7/3 17:24 bellcurve 1 Record 522/1024 0.62 4
2004/7/3 17:34 bellcurve 1 Record 515/1024 0.19 2
2004/7/3 17:42 bellcurve 1 Record 530/1024 1.12 7
2004/7/3 17:42 bellcurve 1 Record 502/1024 0.62 4
Total 30163/60416 0.37

On each one I was concentrating to make ithe majority of them go to the right, go clockwise, or sway larger. So it looks like I have 'negative psi' (which I don't believe is a useful concept). I believe my cumulative trials to this date are unsuccessful in showing I have 'psi' ability, because they are in line with what is expected by chance.

[davidhorman]

How about your own RNG to influence? Select Line In as your recording device in Windows. There should be enough noise even if you don't have a sound source plugged in. Then download:

http://www.geocities.com/david_horman/psi.zip

Extract the .exe, run it and click "Cap". It works on the parity of the sound samples. A centred white line means an equal number of odd and even samples.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, so they generate a random bit stream, then use it to drive the clock or whatever display you've chosen. If you manage to skew the clock, the theory is that you've retroactively affected the RNG. Have I got this right?

So what happens if they copy the random bit stream and store it on disk before the trial starts? Can we watch the stored bit stream change as you skew the clock? In real time? How about if we make 1,000 copies of the bit stream? Will they all change?

Presumably the RNG is a pseudo-random number generator routine running on some computer. Can I retroactively affect the operation of other routines on the computer?

This is really quite hilarious.

~~ Paul

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


This is really quite hilarious.

~~ Paul

Maybe. But it appears to work for me. How come? Luck?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Lucianarchy, do you have a thesis on:

1) How I should be able to influence a random generator, when I don't even know where on the planet it is, let alone how it works?



Psi is goal directed. It's like being able to move your arm even though you are clueless to the physical processes involved.

BTW I can't get the link. My stupid useless connection.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Yes. The result is predetermined before you even click start.

Ummm, the result can't be predetermined otherwise you couldn't possibly influence it. Get your facts right.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Okay, so they generate a random bit stream, then use it to drive the clock or whatever display you've chosen. If you manage to skew the clock, the theory is that you've retroactively affected the RNG. Have I got this right?



Yes but you can't change the past. You just determine its reality in the present.



So what happens if they copy the random bit stream and store it on disk before the trial starts? Can we watch the stored bit stream change as you skew the clock? In real time?



Once the data is observed then the reality becomes concrete. Obviously one cannot then alter it by psi. Reality only becomes concrete once a sentient being has observed it.



How about if we make 1,000 copies of the bit stream? Will they all change?

Presumably the RNG is a pseudo-random number generator routine running on some computer. Can I retroactively affect the operation of other routines on the computer?



You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

[Interesting Ian]

YES! the link is now working.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

True. But you can take a copy of the output. Actually, I would believe that they have only a single radioactive random number generator, and that they just tap in on that. Which means that if two persons are taking the test at the same time, they would see the same stream of random numbers. So the question is valid: will all copies change?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This is really quite hilarious.

It's ridiculous. Why this complicated setup? All they need is to see if just one bit can be changed.

It's exactly the same with P.E.A.R. and those silly "eggs": The theory is that "global events" (which can be anything, it seems) change the bits in a string of random 0's and 1's.

Instead, the eggs should generate all 0's, and all they would have to do is look for just one 1.

Of course, by not keeping it simple, they also increase the possibilities of interpreting the data. Without this interpretation, there would be no P.E.A.R. at all.

I wonder how P.E.A.R. calibrated those eggs....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

Why? It's just a string of bits.

[Interesting Ian]

Yup, it says:


Retropsychokinesis is the claimed ability of certain subjects to alter random data generated, but not examined, prior to the time the data are presented to the subject.


So TheBoyPaj, your contention that the result has been determined before examining the data cannot be upheld.

You're making the mistake of assuming the existence of a material reality. But the results can only be explained by assuming that reality only becomes "concrete" or actualised when a conscious being observes it.

So retropsychokinesis, if it exists, not only refutes materialism, but also the existence of a material world (ie a world existing in abstraction from our observations of it).

This then proves my idealism is correct. Agreed?

[Ed]

I know that it is un-PC but the mentally ill are so amusing.

[Lucianarchy]

AUTHORS YEAR JOURNAL z-score
Bierman, et.al. 1975 EJP 1-1 0.89
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 3.14
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 4.22
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 2.90
Millar, et.al. 1976 RIP 1976 0.00
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 1.15
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 -0.28
Broughton, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 0.00
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -3.07
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -1.60
Braud, et.al. 1979 JSPR -0.10
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 1.90
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 3.08
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 3.23
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 0.37
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 -2.45
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.82
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.96
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 -1.90
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 1.54
Schmidt, et.al. 1986 JoP 50 2.71
Schmidt, et.al. 1988 RIP 1988 1.66
Schmidt, et.al. 1990 RIP 1991 0.62
Schmidt, et.al. 1992 JoP 57 1.88
Michels 1993 Skepsis 6 1.64
Schmidt & Stapp 1993 JoP 57 1.23

TOTAL-z=5.31

T'ai, would you consider the above overall z of 5.31 to be in line with what could be expected by chance?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I know that it is un-PC but the mentally ill are so amusing.

I scarcely think materialism is in accordance with common-sense either :rolleyes: Indeed it is vastly more uncommonsensical than idealism. It's just that people don't understand what materialism implies.

Anyway, from a philosophical perspective, and from common experiences, and from parapsychological research, materialism is utterly destroyed.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Presumably the RNG is a pseudo-random number generator routine running on some computer. Can I retroactively affect the operation of other routines on the computer?


Why presume when you can read?

"HotBits: Genuine random numbers, generated by radioactive decay"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes but you can't change the past. You just determine its reality in the present.



Are you familiar with the delayed choice experiments? You can alter the history of an observable by the choice you make in the present. This could be called "changing the past."

I claim no QM ties to the RPKP project. Just an interesting thought.


You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

Have you read Radin or PEAR? Supposedly more than one group has demonstrated that pseudorandom number generators are just as easy to influence. Fishy, I know.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by steenkh


True. But you can take a copy of the output. Actually, I would believe that they have only a single radioactive random number generator, and that they just tap in on that. Which means that if two persons are taking the test at the same time, they would see the same stream of random numbers. So the question is valid: will all copies change?

This is explained on the RNG page:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Bits are retrieved by sequential http requests:

Once the random bytes are delivered to you, they are immediately discarded--the same data will never be sent to any other user and no records are kept of the data at this or any other site.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


It's ridiculous. Why this complicated setup? All they need is to see if just one bit can be changed.

It's exactly the same with P.E.A.R. and those silly "eggs": The theory is that "global events" (which can be anything, it seems) change the bits in a string of random 0's and 1's.

Instead, the eggs should generate all 0's, and all they would have to do is look for just one 1.

Of course, by not keeping it simple, they also increase the possibilities of interpreting the data. Without this interpretation, there would be no P.E.A.R. at all.

I wonder how P.E.A.R. calibrated those eggs....

Curious, how might one go about doing this? Using radioactive decay, the idea is generating a string of qubits in the state

1/sqrt(2) (|0> + |1>)

Which yields a measurement of 0 half the time, and 1 the other half. If it were to generate "all" zeros (|0>), then there's presumably no possibility of generating ones at all. Suggestions?

I believe the hypothesis is that consciousness can affect measurement, not generation. Since the collapse of the state vector is very poorly (not at all?) understood, I'm not sure how this hypothesis contradicts QM. I'd love to hear if there are any ideas on this.

[steenkh]

Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
If it were to generate "all" zeros (|0>), then there's presumably no possibility of generating ones at all.

And that's what we are looking for. Then, it is extremely easy to see if the datastring has been altered: Just look for a 1 in the ocean of 0's.

No need for complicated statistics. No need for mumbo-jumbo.

Just look for a 1.

[Ed]

Originally posted by steenkh
Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

If one can change the past, why does the number string need to be random? It seems to me that this is yet another ploy to obfuscate by appealing to odd atatistics and other gyrations.

Suppose the "generator" simply produces a zero every millisecod and the job of the "changer of reality" is to pop a one in now and then?

Why not do this with any of the purported RNG protocols? I think that I know.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by steenkh
Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

Are you familiar with the no-cloning theorem? It is not possible to clone a qubit (and preserve its quantum state, that is). This is an important point in QM.

If they were to copy the bits, it would have to be classically--in which case collapse has already occurred, and by hypothesis, further change is not possible. So if they were indeed copying them, we should see it as "no effect."

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


And that's what we are looking for. Then, it is extremely easy to see if the datastring has been altered: Just look for a 1 in the ocean of 0's.

No need for complicated statistics. No need for mumbo-jumbo.

Just look for a 1.

Whether or not they have any valid claims, or whether their hypothesis is reasonable or not, I have no idea about. If you haven't studied QM yourself, please do not take my word for it. Tez is an expert in Quantum Information Science. Please ask his opinion.

I do not understand how one might quantum mechanically generate qubits that are "sometimes" 0 or "sometimes" 1. The probability of measuring a qubit in a particular state is very well defined. The most one can do is measure a deviation from expected probabilities.

This is not mumbo-jumbo, although if you're not familiar with QM, I can see how it might sound as such. All claims of psi aside, this is very well understood in quantum mechanics.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed


If one can change the past, why does the number string need to be random? It seems to me that this is yet another ploy to obfuscate by appealing to odd atatistics and other gyrations.

Suppose the "generator" simply produces a zero every millisecod and the job of the "changer of reality" is to pop a one in now and then?

Why not do this with any of the purported RNG protocols? I think that I know.

Please see prior post. In this case, it needs to be random because, by hypothesis, they need to generate a stream of qubits that have not yet undergone collapse.

If the hypothesis were as general as "people can retroactively change reality," I would agree with you. But if the hypothesis is "consciousness can affect the probabilities of the state vector collapse" as it seems to be, this protocol is quite necessary.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by steenkh


Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

Yes and No. PQ theory says there are infinite probabilities. It depends entirely on how you chose to percieve an act of observation. One thing is for sure, from a human perspective, the 'past' is nothing more than a re-collection of information and is constantly changing depending on how it is observed in the 'now'. The 'past' depends entirely on a belief / conscious investment.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by flyboy217

Are you familiar with the no-cloning theorem? It is not possible to clone a qubit (and preserve its quantum state, that is). This is an important point in QM.

If they were to copy the bits, it would have to be classically--in which case collapse has already occurred, and by hypothesis, further change is not possible. So if they were indeed copying them, we should see it as "no effect."

Actually, I have heard about it. But we are not talking about qubits here. The moment the qubit is stored on Fourmilabs conventional computer and sent over the internet, it is a normal bit stored in a way where QM has no noticeable effects. In other words, if the experiment works, somebody along the line could have taken a copy.

I understand that Fourmilab wants to test psi on QM effects, but this is not the case in this experiment.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
This is not mumbo-jumbo, although if you're not familiar with QM, I can see how it might sound as such. All claims of psi aside, this is very well understood in quantum mechanics.

I wasn't referring to QM as mumbo-jumbo. I was referring to the technobabble we hear as explanations for using these complex methods.

If the idea is to switch bits in a datastream, then you most definitely should simplify as much as possible: Have a string of 0's, and see if anyone can switch just one 0 to 1.

Originally posted by Ed
Why not do this with any of the purported RNG protocols? I think that I know.

I think I do too.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

(edited to remove duplicate post)

Doop! That didn't really happen ;)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by steenkh


Actually, I have heard about it. But we are not talking about qubits here. The moment the qubit is stored on Fourmilabs conventional computer and sent over the internet, it is a normal bit stored in a way where QM has no noticeable effects. In other words, if the experiment works, somebody along the line could have taken a copy.

I understand that Fourmilab wants to test psi on QM effects, but this is not the case in this experiment.

The interesting thing is that the qubit will not collapse merely by being recorded classically. The storage device will be put into a superposition along with the qubits. This is a point often brought up with Schroedinger's cat: if a video camera were to record the death/not-death of the cat, it wouldn't reduce the cat to one state. Instead, the video camera goes into a superposition with the cat. Only an "observation" will collapse this augmented state.

The main argument against this is that there's far too much "noise" to maintain the superposition, but I'm not sure of the implications. I believe it may be a very valid criticism.

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Please see prior post. In this case, it needs to be random because, by hypothesis, they need to generate a stream of qubits that have not yet undergone collapse.

If the hypothesis were as general as "people can retroactively change reality," I would agree with you. But if the hypothesis is "consciousness can affect the probabilities of the state vector collapse" as it seems to be, this protocol is quite necessary.

Yes, but now you are theorizing in advance of the data. That is to say that you are proposing a mechanism for which the data are, at best, open to argument.

So, why not go back to basics ... can a person alter a stream of Zeros? You would agree, I assume, that a clear and replicable demonstration of something is an absolute requirement, no?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I wasn't referring to QM as mumbo-jumbo. I was referring to the technobabble we hear as explanations for using these complex methods.

If the idea is to switch bits in a datastream, then you most definitely should simplify as much as possible: Have a string of 0's, and see if anyone can switch just one 0 to 1.


I have invited Tez to explain this here. Apart from showing you several (IEEE award-winning;)) papers I have written related to Quantum Computing, I have no way of convincing you over the Internet that any of this "technobabble" actually makes sense.

The idea is NOT to "switch bits in a datastream." It is, again, to affect the probabilities of the collapse of the qubit's state vector. Although that hypothesis may sound/be crazy, the concept of state measurement is at least well defined. The concept of "switching just one 0 to 1" is NOT well defined at all.

(edited for clarity)

[Lucianarchy]

The point is, it works. Look at the data above.

Ed and Claus are making the same "why can't" fallacy of Ersby's "why can't Price [ add your own wish list here ]"

I dunno, may be they can. But here we're dealing with what works. If you think you know how it works, then let's here it. But work, it evidently does.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes but you can't change the past. You just determine its reality in the present.


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



Are you familiar with the delayed choice experiments? You can alter the history of an observable by the choice you make in the present. This could be called "changing the past."



Not possible. PLease provide references, preferably links.




I claim no QM ties to the RPKP project. Just an interesting thought.



Nothing about QM can be taken to mean you've altered the past.



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

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Have you read Radin or PEAR? Supposedly more than one group has demonstrated that pseudorandom number generators are just as easy to influence. Fishy, I know.

Links please. I find this difficult to believe. If in fact this is so, why do they use genuine random number generators? Being able to affect the execution of an algorithm is much more interesting.

I am genuinely interested in these links which verify what you say.

[Lucianarchy]

Maybe it's a 'parlour trick'. Have we got any magicians here who can tell us how the trick is done?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by steenkh
Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

Huh?? Where on earth do you get this notion that psi can change history??? :eek:

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed

Yes, but now you are theorizing in advance of the data. That is to say that you are proposing a mechanism for which the data are, at best, open to argument.


I would be happy to save the theorizing until after the data are in. However, when one is examining the design of an experiment, it might also make sense to examine their hypothesis and assumptions, as we are doing.


So, why not go back to basics ... can a person alter a stream of Zeros? You would agree, I assume, that a clear and replicable demonstration of something is an absolute requirement, no?

Ed, I urge you: Have you studied quantum mechanics? If the suggested hypothesis relies on QM, it is not possible for me to debate this with you unless you have at least an elementary grasp of it. I myself am no expert in QM, but I understand the basics.

I do not follow the concept of "a stream of zeros." In the classical context, it would make sense to compare a stream of zeros to a stream of zeros and ones. In a quantum mechanical context, it doesn't make any sense at all.

RPKP: 1/sqrt(2) (|0> + |1>)
Ed: |0>

The first stream of qubits (RPKP) will "randomly" collapse as 0 or 1. The hypothesis is that consciousness can affect the probabilities with which each of these occurs. The second stream is already collapsed, and can thus not be affected.

I do not think I can explain it any better, at least not without you all having a better understanding of QM. I will try to refrain from posting further on this particular point.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Huh?? Where on earth do you get this notion that psi can change history??? :eek:

Here is a quote from Fourmilabs intro:

in other words, the human mind can in some (limited) sense "influence" or at least "select" the past.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not possible. PLease provide references, preferably links.


Nothing about QM can be taken to mean you've altered the past.


Why speak on QM unless you've done some research about said claims?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205182.pdf

"As peculiar as quantum measurement is known to be,
its strangeness is even greater when one tries to determine
not merely the state of a system, but its entire
history. Past events are supposed to be unchangeable,
and as such the most essential aspect of reality. And yet,
when a quantum measurement traces a certain history,
it seems to take an active part in the very formation of
that history."

This is a well-known concept proposed by Wheeler and Einstein. As with many things in QM, it is also open to interpretation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
[B]

If one can change the past,



{sighs} :rolleyes:

What are you talking about "change the past"?? Who is saying this??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by steenkh


Here is a quote from Fourmilabs intro:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in other words, the human mind can in some (limited) sense "influence" or at least "select" the past.


Select is fine, but influence is simply nonsensical; a desperate measure to try and salvage materialism.

I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your assertion.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Select is fine, but influence is simply nonsensical; a desperate measure to try and salvage materialism.

I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your assertion.

When you realise that you are in fact, wrong, Ian, you will have altered your own history, because 'now', you believe you are right.

Right?

The shared balance of beliefs is what the past is. The sooner people 'realise' what is most probably going on, I predict the more striking the results of these observations will become.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Why speak on QM unless you've done some research about said claims?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205182.pdf

"As peculiar as quantum measurement is known to be,
its strangeness is even greater when one tries to determine
not merely the state of a system, but its entire
history. Past events are supposed to be unchangeable,
and as such the most essential aspect of reality. And yet,
when a quantum measurement traces a certain history,
it seems to take an active part in the very formation of
that history."

This is a well-known concept proposed by Wheeler and Einstein. As with many things in QM, it is also open to interpretation.

That paragraph is simply confused. Indeed a quantum measurement might well take an active part in the very formation of history. But this doesn't mean to say that you've altered the past. You and they are presupposing the concrete reality of a world in abstraction from any conscious observers.

However, I shall read that link.

Now, what about your claim that results are as equally strong when using pseudo-random numbers as for genuine random numbers??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
The idea is NOT to "switch bits in a datastream." It is, again, to affect the probabilities of the collapse of the qubit's state vector. Although that hypothesis may sound/be crazy, the concept of state measurement is at least well defined. The concept of "switching just one 0 to 1" is NOT well defined at all.

The P.E.A.R. experiment is designed to get a bitstream of 1's and 0's changed by "global events".

If it is possible to change a statistically significant number of bits to show an effect, then it is also possible to change just one bit.

So, the idea is to switch bits in a datastream.

One bit. That's all that is needed.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The point is, it works. Look at the data above.

I don't trust anything from your hand, you liar.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ed and Claus are making the same "why can't" fallacy of Ersby's "why can't Price [ add your own wish list here ]"

No, we are not making any fallacies. All it takes is one bit.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I dunno, may be they can. But here we're dealing with what works. If you think you know how it works, then let's here it. But work, it evidently does.

Bull.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your assertion.

What assertion? I said "if psi can change history", I did not assert that psi could change history. I just interpreted what I read at Fourmilab, as you saw from the quote.

[Lucianarchy]

AUTHORS YEAR JOURNAL z-score
Bierman, et.al. 1975 EJP 1-1 0.89
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 3.14
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 4.22
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 2.90
Millar, et.al. 1976 RIP 1976 0.00
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 1.15
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 -0.28
Broughton, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 0.00
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -3.07
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -1.60
Braud, et.al. 1979 JSPR -0.10
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 1.90
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 3.08
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 3.23
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 0.37
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 -2.45
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.82
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.96
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 -1.90
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 1.54
Schmidt, et.al. 1986 JoP 50 2.71
Schmidt, et.al. 1988 RIP 1988 1.66
Schmidt, et.al. 1990 RIP 1991 0.62
Schmidt, et.al. 1992 JoP 57 1.88
Michels 1993 Skepsis 6 1.64
Schmidt & Stapp 1993 JoP 57 1.23

TOTAL-z=5.31

Claus, would you consider the above overall z of 5.31 to be in line with what could be expected by chance?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by steenkh


What assertion? I said "if psi can change history", I did not assert that psi could change history. I just interpreted what I read at Fourmilab, as you saw from the quote.

Maybe the quote has now changed in Ian's perception of reality.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The shared balance of beliefs is what the past is. The sooner people 'realise' what is most probably going on, I predict the more striking the results of these observations will become.

No need to make yet another failed prediction.

It doesn't help to pray for someone to get healed. It doesn't help that TM'ers meditate to lower the crime rate in Washington. It doesn't help that P.E.A.R. puts up "eggs" all over the world to see if a "global consciousness" can predict "global events".

It just doesn't work, Lucianarchy. The data shows it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


That paragraph is simply confused. Indeed a quantum measurement might well take an active part in the very formation of history. But this doesn't mean to say that you've altered the past. You and they are presupposing the concrete reality of a world in abstraction from any conscious observers.


I am not presupposing anything. I am merely pointing out that there are as-of-yet unresolved conceptual issues surrounding the nature of quantum mechanics. Wheeler's & Einstein's camp is in fact one of the major ones, what with Wheeler and Einstein being two of the most important physicists of the century. In addition, the authors of that paper happen to be very well respected in their field. Perhaps you can take the issue up with them.


However, I shall read that link.


Yes, please do.


Now, what about your claim that results are as equally strong when using pseudo-random numbers as for genuine random numbers??

Again, it is not my claim. I find it as absurd as you. If I get the chance to find it again in Radin's book, I will post it here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
AUTHORS YEAR JOURNAL z-score
Bierman, et.al. 1975 EJP 1-1 0.89
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 3.14
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 4.22
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 2.90
Millar, et.al. 1976 RIP 1976 0.00
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 1.15
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 -0.28
Broughton, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 0.00
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -3.07
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -1.60
Braud, et.al. 1979 JSPR -0.10
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 1.90
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 3.08
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 3.23
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 0.37
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 -2.45
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.82
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.96
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 -1.90
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 1.54
Schmidt, et.al. 1986 JoP 50 2.71
Schmidt, et.al. 1988 RIP 1988 1.66
Schmidt, et.al. 1990 RIP 1991 0.62
Schmidt, et.al. 1992 JoP 57 1.88
Michels 1993 Skepsis 6 1.64
Schmidt & Stapp 1993 JoP 57 1.23

TOTAL-z=5.31

Claus, would you consider the above overall z of 5.31 to be in line with what could be expected by chance?

What is this? Please explain.

[Humphreys]

Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems possible to cheat at this. If the results aren't going too well, you can just press back on your browser.

Are the results still stored then?

What happens if you quite during a test?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, we are not making any fallacies. All it takes is one bit.



Lol! And that's the fallacy! RPK data being discussed here is based on probability No one's claiming to bring something into existence which could not possibly be there in the first place. Fallacy.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Humphreys
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems possible to cheat at this. If the results aren't going too well, you can just press back on your browser.

Are the results still stored then?

What happens if you quite during a test?

Try and actualy do the experiment by logging your email record. You will see that once you 'start', there is no going back. lol!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by steenkh


What assertion? I said "if psi can change history", I did not assert that psi could change history. I just interpreted what I read at Fourmilab, as you saw from the quote.

OK my error. But I don't think that retropsychokinesis, even if its existence were confirmed, would justify the thesis that you are actually changing history. No, you are, in a sense, creating history.

[Humphreys]

If you click back it does seem to still store the results actually, but if you click "Show My Experiment Log" during a test it doesn't seem to store the results.

Can anyone explain why it's not possible to cheat like this?

I'm doing the pendulum one, by the way.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Try and actualy do the experiment by logging your email record. You will see that once you 'start', there is no going back. lol!

See above. When I click "Show My Experiment Log" during a test, the results don't seem to be stored.

It could just be me. Can you show how this is not the case?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If it is possible to change a statistically significant number of bits to show an effect, then it is also possible to change just one bit.

So, the idea is to switch bits in a datastream.

One bit. That's all that is needed.


Let me try explaining this in another context--one which a reader might be able to understand with no more than a layman's understanding of quantum mechanics. I will assume you are familiar with the Schroedinger's Cat gedankenexperiment, as that is the one most commonly treated in popular science literature.

The stream of qubits is analogous to a stream of Schroedinger's cats. Each cat is set up in a superposition; no cat is actually dead or actually alive just yet--they are "both." Quantum mechanics dictates that, upon measurement, the ratio of dead cats to alive cats should asymptotically approach 1:1. The hypothesis presented is that, given a particular conscious observer, the asymptotic probability will deviate from this (a hypothesis which I have no comment on as of yet). The state of each cat is indeterminate until observation, and the results can ONLY be interpreted statistically. This is a crucial point in quantum mechanics, one which I am not manufacturing.

If one were to repeat this experiment, but instead of using superposed Schroedinger cats, used previously killed ones, we would run into a severe difficulty. Do you now see why?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Lol! And that's the fallacy! RPK data being discussed here is based on probability No one's claiming to bring something into existence which could not possibly be there in the first place. Fallacy.

Not a fallacy.

For something to happen, it only has to happen once. That's all we ask for. We don't ask for it to happen a statistically significant number of times. All we ask for is for one bit to be changed.

Just one.

Everything else is armwaving. Flimflam. Misdirection.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What is this? Please explain.

It's the RetroPK Database compiled and presented at the Tucson II conference by Dick Bierman - http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/bierman-metaanalysis.html

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Maybe the quote has now changed in Ian's perception of reality.

Let's not be idiotic Luc.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Humphreys
See above. When I click "Show My Experiment Log" during a test, the results don't seem to be stored.

It could just be me. Can you show how this is not the case?

Can someone else try this please and let me know if this is indeed the case.

This opens a window for easy cheating if it's true. It seems to be to me but I'm looking confirmation from someone.

I might just be looking at this wrong.

Run a pendulum test on 'record', if it's going bad, click "Show My Experiment Log" on the screen, and see if your results are stored.

Well?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Let's not be idiotic Luc.

You first! :)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not a fallacy.

For something to happen, it only has to happen once. That's all we ask for. We don't ask for it to happen a statistically significant number of times. All we ask for is for one bit to be changed.

Just one.

Everything else is armwaving. Flimflam. Misdirection.

Let us set aside all claims of psi for the time being, as this seems to be unnecessarily clouding the conversation.

The concept of probabilistic measurement is the very crux of quantum mechanics. When you say "one bit to be changed," what do you mean? Once a qubit has been measured once, all further measurements will yield exactly the same result. If it has not been measured before, and all we know is its quantum state (in this case 1/sqrt(2) (|0>+|1>)), then there is NO way of determining what the outcome will be. The best we can say is that, asymptotically, the number of qubits measured as |0> will equal the number measured as |1>.

Are we clear on this point?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217
That paragraph is simply confused. Indeed a quantum measurement might well take an active part in the very formation of history. But this doesn't mean to say that you've altered the past. You and they are presupposing the concrete reality of a world in abstraction from any conscious observers.

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



I am not presupposing anything.



Everything you have said suggests otherwise.



I am merely pointing out that there are as-of-yet unresolved conceptual issues surrounding the nature of quantum mechanics. Wheeler's & Einstein's camp is in fact one of the major ones, what with Wheeler and Einstein being two of the most important physicists of the century. In addition, the authors of that paper happen to be very well respected in their field. Perhaps you can take the issue up with them.



I am not interested in taking the issue up with them. My argument is with you. You have neither vindicated that the reality of retropsychokinesis entails that you have actually changed the past (rather than merely created it), nor have you vindicated that these QM experiments justifies the conclusion that one has changed the past (rather than merely created it).



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

However, I shall read that link.

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



Yes, please do.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what about your claim that results are as equally strong when using pseudo-random numbers as for genuine random numbers??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, it is not my claim. I find it as absurd as you. If I get the chance to find it again in Radin's book, I will post it here.


:rolleyes: Right , so you're unable to back up your assertion.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Humphreys


Can someone else try this please and let me know if this is indeed the case.

This opens a window for easy cheating if it's true. It seems to be to me but I'm looking confirmation from someone.

I might just be looking at this wrong.

Run a pendulum test on 'record', if it's going bad, click "Show My Experiment Log" on the screen, and see if your results are stored.

Well?

Not right away, if you interrupt the experiment. But try and check your log a bit later. It is there. Well, it is on mine, and I've tried what you suggest.

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Let me try explaining this in another context--one which a reader might be able to understand with no more than a layman's understanding of quantum mechanics. I will assume you are familiar with the Schroedinger's Cat gedankenexperiment, as that is the one most commonly treated in popular science literature.

The stream of qubits is analogous to a stream of Schroedinger's cats. Each cat is set up in a superposition; no cat is actually dead or actually alive just yet--they are "both." Quantum mechanics dictates that, upon measurement, the ratio of dead cats to alive cats should asymptotically approach 1:1. The hypothesis presented is that, given a particular conscious observer, the asymptotic probability will deviate from this (a hypothesis which I have no comment on as of yet). The state of each cat is indeterminate until observation, and the results can ONLY be interpreted statistically. This is a crucial point in quantum mechanics, one which I am not manufacturing.

If one were to repeat this experiment, but instead of using superposed Schroedinger cats, used previously killed ones, we would run into a severe difficulty. Do you now see why?

Understand completely. If QM is the basis for the RNG effect this makes sense. But how does one know? Start simple and go from there.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Not right away, if you interrupt the experiment. But try and check your log a bit later. It is there. Well, it is on mine, and I've tried what you suggest.

Okay will do. I'll keep an eye on it.

This is kinda like the real 'psi' experiments; gotta look for the loopholes :)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I am not interested in taking the issue up with them. My argument is with you. You have neither vindicated that the reality of retropsychokinesis entails that you have actually changed the past (rather than merely created it), nor have you vindicated that these QM experiments justifies the conclusion that one has changed the past (rather than merely created it).


I do not understand why you are arguing with me at all. If I claim that my quantum mechanics textbook explains so-and-so, why would you insist on arguing with ME? If I have made any claims of personal belief on the matter of quantum mechanics, let me apologize now. LANL keeps abreast of the latest updates on the field, and Zeilinger is a world-renowned expert in it. I am merely pointing out his, Wheeler's, and Einstein's tentative explanation that:

"And yet, when a quantum measurement traces a certain history,
it seems to take an active part in the very formation of
that history."

If I mixed up "formation" and "change" of history, this is a philosophical point, and I apologize profusely. This is merely one modern interpretation of QM. I have no interest in debating it with you.


:rolleyes: Right , so you're unable to back up your assertion.

I have picked up Radin's book right now. I will let you know as soon as I have located the claim. It is NOT my assertion.

(edited)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Let us set aside all claims of psi for the time being, as this seems to be unnecessarily clouding the conversation.

The concept of probabilistic measurement is the very crux of quantum mechanics. When you say "one bit to be changed," what do you mean? Once a qubit has been measured once, all further measurements will yield exactly the same result. If it has not been measured before, and all we know is its quantum state (in this case 1/sqrt(2) (|0>+|1>)), then there is NO way of determining what the outcome will be. The best we can say is that, asymptotically, the number of qubits measured as |0> will equal the number measured as |1>.

Are we clear on this point?

Yes, but I am not arguing QM at all. I'm talking about a bitstream, used in P.E.A.R. and on this website.

I really don't know how to be more clear about just one 0 being changed to 1.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed


Understand completely. If QM is the basis for the RNG effect this makes sense. But how does one know? Start simple and go from there.

My post was an attempt to explain that part of QM to CFLarsen. Without that understanding, the hypothesis would not make much sense.

I do not know that QM is the basis for the RNG effect. I am explaining what I understand to be the basis for it. If, indeed, there is a QM explanation for it, it seems that would be the first place to look. Indeed, I do not know of any other places in physics that might allow for such strange behavior. I do not even know if this should allow for it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yes, but I am not arguing QM at all. I'm talking about a bitstream, used in P.E.A.R. and on this website.


If the bitstream has not been observed by anyone yet, then it (being generated by radioactive decay) is still in an uncollapsed state. That is why making claims about the bitstream is making claims about QM. As mentioned before, a valid argument might be that such a stream is liable to be affected by too much interference to maintain a coherent superposition.


I really don't know how to be more clear about just one 0 being changed to 1.

Okay, then let's try this: What do you mean by "being changed." I understand this to mean the following: at some point in time, a bit is observed to be a 0, and then at some later time, it is observed to be a 1. This would not be sensible in the context of quantum mechanics. Once a measurement is complete, all future measurements must yield the same result.

The point is that none of these bits are being "changed"--they are merely being collapsed by a measurement. If you could explain what you mean by "changed," maybe I would understand better.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217

Ian
However, I shall read that link.

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

flyboy
Yes, please do.



Well it certainly doesn't justify your stance. The title of the very last section says:

ADMIT BACKWARD CAUSATION OR
ABANDON REALISM?

So we are not obliged to embrace backward causation (which is the same as altering the past), we simply need to abandon realism (ie the notion of an objective reality existing wholly independently of consciousness).

And of course this makes much more sense in the context of retropsychokinesis when we consider the data could be actually recorded onto a CD.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
If QM is the basis for the RNG effect this makes sense. But how does one know? Start simple and go from there.

Exactly: How does QM account for a macro-level event, such as a P.E.A.R. "egg" bitstream, steel balls falling either left or right, or a computer-generated bitstream from the Fourmilab site?

It comes down to three steps:


Find an experiment that can be replicated, and that shows the results.
Explain why QM can influence these macro-level events.
Prove that it does.


It's very, very, very simple.

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


If the bitstream has not been observed by anyone yet, then it (being generated by radioactive decay) is still in an uncollapsed state. That is why making claims about the bitstream is making claims about QM. As mentioned before, a valid argument might be that such a stream is liable to be affected by too much interference to maintain a coherent superposition.





So then if one were to program an action, say turning on a TV, but no one observed it one could change the "reality" of that TV by observation? Or is it that a given bit has a virtual state that is dependent on any manifestation of it?

BTW, if you attack Ian's worldview he get's silly.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Exactly: How does QM account for a macro-level event, such as a P.E.A.R. "egg" bitstream, steel balls falling either left or right, or a computer-generated bitstream from the Fourmilab site?



I don't know how it could account for the other experiments you mention. I never brought them up, in fact. And not to be pedantic, but the Fourmilab bitstream is not "computer-generated." It is generated by a well-accepted quantum mechanical process: radioactive decay.

From there, how it might maintain the superposition is anybody's guess. I have no hypothesis on how this might be achieved. But if such a thing could be achieved, it would yield only probabilistic results of the kind we have been discussing--an excess of one outcome or the other, and not a "change" in any particular observable.



It comes down to three steps:


Find an experiment that can be replicated, and that shows the results.
Explain why QM can influence these macro-level events.
Prove that it does.


It's very, very, very simple.

Sounds good.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217
[B]

I do not understand why you are arguing with me at all.



You have claimed that one can alter the past. I dispute this whether we are talking about QM or whether we are talking about retropsychokinesis..

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed


So then if one were to program an action, say turning on a TV, but no one observed it one could change the "reality" of that TV by observation? Or is it that a given bit has a virtual state that is dependent on any manifestation of it?



The way I see it, it is best to understand the essentials of QM from a strictly mathematical perspective, and save the philosophizing for later.

In the case of the TV, it is in essence identical to Schroedinger's Cat. If the programming of the action was dependent on a quantum mechanical event that yielded a known superposition (in this case, a balanced one), then the "reality" of it is indeterminate until such time as an observation has been made. To be consistent with our restraint from philosophizing, we can take "reality" to mean that ALL future examinations of its state will be consistent with this initial observation. There is no way of predicting the actual value of the initial observation--this is strictly probabilistic.



BTW, if you attack Ian's worldview he get's silly.

I noticed. I didn't mean to attack anything however.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, okay, I was mistaken. Ian has explained it. It is not that you are changing the pregenerated bit stream after it is generated. You are actually affecting the original generation of the bit stream.

Now, someone pointed out that this will only work with a truly random RNG, not with a software pseudo-random RNG. This is testable and should be tested.

Here's another test: Use the same bit stream to drive two clocks at the same time, with two subjects asked to skew their clocks in different directions. What would happen then?

Another: Reuse the same bit stream sequentially with the same subject, asking him to skew it in different directions. What would happen then?

How do we know the bit streams aren't used again in the future for another experiment? Are they systematically deleted after each experiment?

~~ Paul

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You have claimed that one can alter the past. I dispute this whether we are talking about QM or whether we are talking about retropsychokinesis..

My bad Ian. When I claimed that one could alter the past, I only meant that one can, in effect, choose between alternate histories long after the event has occurred. My choice of words may have been misleading. Again, apologies. :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Ah, okay, I was mistaken. Ian has explained it. It is not that you are changing the pregenerated bit stream after it is generated. You are actually affecting the original generation of the bit stream.



Yes that's it! At least that's how I would interpret it. People seemed to be disagreeing with me.

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


My bad Ian. When I claimed that one could alter the past, I only meant that one can, in effect, choose between alternate histories long after the event has occurred. My choice of words may have been misleading. Again, apologies. :)


No, you clearly contradicted Ian!

---skulks out----

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217


My bad Ian. When I claimed that one could alter the past, I only meant that one can, in effect, choose between alternate histories long after the event has occurred. My choice of words may have been misleading. Again, apologies. :)

Well, looks like we don't have a disagreement then :( Oh well LOL ;)

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, do you believe that a z score of 5.31 is in line with you could resonably expect of chance?

[steenkh]

Originally posted by flyboy217

If one were to repeat this experiment, but instead of using superposed Schroedinger cats, used previously killed ones, we would run into a severe difficulty. Do you now see why?

flyboy,

You seem to be the one here who understands QM best. If psi really can influence, select, or whatever, the qubits here, would that not in effect create a problem for QM? I mean, it is crucial for QM that these cats are superimposed alive and dead, but here we have psi killing off some of the cats, before their boxes have been opened, right?

[Lucianarchy]

ADDITION EFFECT FOR PK ON PRERECORDED TARGETS
BY HELMUT SCHMIDT
Originally published in Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 49, Sept. 1985

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: In the reported experiments, prerecorded binary events were exposed to two consecutive PK efforts, sometimes in the same target direction and sometimes in opposite target directions. The question under study was whether the two PK efforts would contribute equally to the outcome (which is the null hypothesis) or whether the first effort would have a stronger effect. The results reject the null hypothesis (p = .02) and suggest that the observation of the prerecorded events by the first subject may lock in these events so that any subsequent PK attempt can have no effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most interesting questions raised by previous PK experiments with prerecorded targets is what happens if two consecutive PK efforts are made on the same targets. Do the two efforts add linearly or does the first effort have the greater weight?

When PK effects with prerecorded targets were first reported (Schmidt, 1976), two different interpretations of the effects were offered. One was based on a "teleological" psi model in which the time order between cause and effect was taken to be inverted, so that a later PK effort by a subject might affect the outcome of an earlier random event. The other interpretation, based on a "quantum collapse" model, borrowed ideas from quantum theory and suggested that nature makes the final decision on the outcome of a random event only at the time when the outcome is noticed by some human observer. In other words, the PK mechanism on prerecorded targets would not have to act on the past. Rather, the PK subject, as the first observer of the result, would make nature decide between two still possible outcomes.

These different interpretations and the associated psi models have recently been discussed in detail (Schmidt, 1984 http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html ).[...]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/addition.html

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ah, okay, I was mistaken. Ian has explained it. It is not that you are changing the pregenerated bit stream after it is generated. You are actually affecting the original generation of the bit stream.


Excellent. I think we're all (mostly?) in agreement on this point.

I believe the confusion comes from the difference in "qubit" and "bit." The qubit stream (the stream generated by the radioactive decay process) is itself never altered. Each qubit comes out as a balanced superposition of the kets |0> and |1>. The observation (and hence collapse) of each of these qubits is what generates the observed classical bit stream. Once collapsed, this classical bit stream is not subject to alteration.

The hypothesis, then, is that the proportion of 0s and 1s can be altered from 50/50 in the observed classical stream.

[Ed]

It seems to me that QM is not particularly useful in a discussion of PSI since it appears that we then pile conjecture on top of supposition. The only issue is clear, repeatable results. And the answers to a number of thought questions:

-Who has won the glittering prizes?
-Why have elements of PSI not been selecetd for in human evolution
-If PSI is so delicate that one requires analyses at the 15th decimal, why did anyone ever think to look for it in the first place? And if it is as obvious and ubiquitous as some claim, why look in the 15th decimal place?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, do you believe that a z score of 5.31 is in line with you could resonably expect of chance?

Please explain your post above.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by steenkh


flyboy,

You seem to be the one here who understands QM best. If psi really can influence, select, or whatever, the qubits here, would that not in effect create a problem for QM? I mean, it is crucial for QM that these cats are superimposed alive and dead, but here we have psi killing off some of the cats, before their boxes have been opened, right?

I am no expert on QM, but I'll try my best to explain it as I understand it.

It is not that the purpoted psi effect would be killing off some of the cats before their boxes have been opened; instead, it is that more cats are found dead in the long run than would be expected. On a case-by-case basis, nothing strange is going on.

The state that the Schroedinger Cat is in is expressed by

1/sqrt(2) ( |0> + |1> )

According to QM, the observation of such a qubit should yield |0> with a probability equal to the square of its amplitude--in this case, .5. Similarly for |1>. Since each measurement is purely probabilistic, no individual measurement can be viewed as strange.

The problem is that there should be no way that these probabilities can asymptotically differ from .50. If this were to happen for "sufficiently many" trials, then maybe something interesting is going on.

Unfortunately, QM hasn't formulated a way to integrate the concept of state vector collapse into the evolution of the Schroedinger equation. I would turn to someone more intimately involved in recent QM research (e.g., Tez) for more explanation on this point. But from all I've read, the actual collapse of the state vector is left untouched by QM.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Please explain your post above.


Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Where do you get the "total Z" from?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Since you (again) refuse to give proper references, I found the page myself. (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/bierman-metaanalysis.html)

Please clarify:


On what criteria were the experiments selected?
Did the experiments use the same design and protocol?
Were the number generators all true random generators, yes or no?


I suspect the answers (if you are able to at all) will be:


"Let's take those that will give a good answer"
"No"
"No"

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy



Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance? Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study? or as the site says "Whether that "something" is something interesting (e.g., paranormal) depends on an analysis of the tightness of the experimental protocols."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lothian
Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study? or as the site says "Whether that "something" is something interesting (e.g., paranormal) depends on an analysis of the tightness of the experimental protocols."

It's the usual, desperate clinging to any result, no matter how suspect it is, just as long as it reinforces their belief in the paranormal.

Nothing new (again).

[Zep]

...like PEAR did with 25 years of remote viewing data! Each individual experimental set of data was a "startling example of psi remote viewing", and meta-analysis of the results were expected to sharply delineate the reason(s) why. Much rubbing of hands at Princeton...

Oh dear, it didn't. In fact, it showed nothing expect randomness. As predicted by the skeptics. Why? Very basically because PEAR persisted with poor experimental design, and in counting the hits and not the misses. For 25 years, it seems.

What did they do then? Why, what any good psi research organisation seems to do! They buried it in jargon words so it looked like a success, and published in the Journal of Parapsychology, so that people like Lucianarchy would read it and think it was support for their psi fanatsies.

[davidhorman]

Is the "let's see you change a stream of zeroes into ones" argument over? Because I was going to compare it to asking someone with a die covered in 6s to roll a 5. The RNG thing is actually like asking someone with a die with three 1s and three 6s to roll more 1s. The first example is impossible by definition, but the second is possible, just unlikely.

(flyboy)

The interesting thing is that the qubit will not collapse merely by being recorded classically.

Who says?

This is a point often brought up with Schroedinger's cat: if a video camera were to record the death/not-death of the cat, it wouldn't reduce the cat to one state. Instead, the video camera goes into a superposition with the cat. Only an "observation" will collapse this augmented state.

I discussed in another topic not too long ago. I'm of the opinion that what you've said would only be the case if the box was a totally closed system. Schroedinger's Cat is just a metaphor to help people understand QM.

The way I understand it, the act of "observation" is poorly named. The act of recording data on a hard drive or sending it over network is an observation, and would collapse the qubit.

I think there were some experiments in cryptography not too long ago that found you can only send uncollapsed photons a short distance through the atmosphere before they collapse through interactions with air molecules. It didn't need a human observer, just an interaction with something else that required a collapse to determine its result.

David

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Since you (again) refuse to give proper references, I found the page myself. (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/bierman-metaanalysis.html)


claus, I had already given you the URL last time you asked, but good to see you can do some things for yourself, if you want to.[/b]

Please clarify:


On what criteria were the experiments selected?
Did the experiments use the same design and protocol?
Were the number generators all true random generators, yes or no?

[/B]

Before we go any further, let's establish something. If the answers are all 'yes' ; do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study? or as the site says "Whether that "something" is something interesting (e.g., paranormal) depends on an analysis of the tightness of the experimental protocols."

Well of course. Can you set some criteria, measurable values, as to what that standard actually means to you? Otherwise, as with everything else, the pseudo-skeptic just bins everything which they don't agree with using subjective prejudices.

[Lothian]

Orginally posted by CFLarson
On what criteria were the experiments selected?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Before we go any further, let's establish something. If the answers are all 'yes' ; do you ....? [/B]I somehow doubt they are all yes so there is no point going any further.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lothian
Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study ?



Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Well of course.

Thanks for your honesty.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Well of course. Can you set some criteria, measurable values, as to what that standard actually means to you? Otherwise, as with everything else, the pseudo-skeptic just bins everything which they don't agree with using subjective prejudices.

You simply don't understand anything, do you?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Before we go any further, let's establish something. If the answers are all 'yes' ; do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

They cannot all be "yes" (check the first question).

If we had a replicable phenomenon, that - when tested by the same design and protocol, including a true random generator, then - we'd have a true phenomenon, which we could study.

Would the phenomenon be of a paranormal kind? Far from. Just because we don't understand a phenomenon doesn't mean it is paranormal. By that logic, electricity would be considered paranormal 300 years ago.

Now, I answered your question. Please answer mine.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Well of course. Can you set some criteria, measurable values, as to what that standard actually means to you? Otherwise, as with everything else, the pseudo-skeptic just bins everything which they don't agree with using subjective prejudices.

No. By definition a bad study tells you little if anything.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by davidhorman
Is the "let's see you change a stream of zeroes into ones" argument over? Because I was going to compare it to asking someone with a die covered in 6s to roll a 5. The RNG thing is actually like asking someone with a die with three 1s and three 6s to roll more 1s. The first example is impossible by definition, but the second is possible, just unlikely.


Nice analogy. I think they've dropped it by now.


Who says?


This is the interpretation of QM I am most familiar with. Recording, in general, does not necessarily constitute an observation. The qubit and its surroundings become entangled into a larger superposition.


I discussed in another topic not too long ago. I'm of the opinion that what you've said would only be the case if the box was a totally closed system. Schroedinger's Cat is just a metaphor to help people understand QM.


Certainly.


The way I understand it, the act of "observation" is poorly named. The act of recording data on a hard drive or sending it over network is an observation, and would collapse the qubit.

I think there were some experiments in cryptography not too long ago that found you can only send uncollapsed photons a short distance through the atmosphere before they collapse through interactions with air molecules. It didn't need a human observer, just an interaction with something else that required a collapse to determine its result.

David

As far as I know, the only reason "observation" is poorly named is because it's not at all understood. We have no way of describing precisely what should constitute an observation.

But yes, the 'noise' argument is valid. I mentioned this point earlier. For the most part, the superposition is very easily ruined by channel noise. To believe that the qubit could maintain it after being stored on a hard drive is pretty ridiculous. But I'm still not sure it constitutes an actual collapse of the qubit.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy



Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Hahahahaha. Sterling example of life in the world of woo:

Bierman sez:Bierman comments "Remark that one of the most remarkable findings is the incredible variance in z-scores. Just try it out for yourself (take the sum of z-squares which should be chi^2 distributed)."

Wow! Incredible varience! Maybe cuz there is no control or that there is no vbasis for comparing the experiments. Utter crap.

Also, by my precise calculations (aided by Mr. William Gates I might add) the mean z=0.1256 but as I have mentioned ad nauseum, this is meaningless.

n.b. Luci, if you check out the stuff you post first to separate the good from the bad, as I am sure you do, would you mind for a chuckle to share some of the "bad" research that did not pass your quality muster?

[davidhorman]

Nice analogy. I think they've dropped it by now.

Well, that was just Claus, and if there is a "they" I'm probably one of "them".

As far as I know, the only reason "observation" is poorly named is because it's not at all understood.

It's poorly named because it implies that you need an observer.

David

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by davidhorman


Well, that was just Claus, and if there is a "they" I'm probably one of "them".


Eh? I meant nobody's still arguing the "change a zero to a one" any more, at least not recently.


It's poorly named because it implies that you need an observer.

David

But this hasn't been settled, has it? Whatever we want to call it, there is some action which (apparently) completely collapses the state vector. We have no idea (explicitly) what physical process would do such a thing, rather than going into a superposition with the system... and yet we perform this operation all the time.

[Lucianarchy]

What's the average 'swing' of those still doing the Formilab online RPK experiment.

I find that most of the session the deviations go to the intended direction, but towards the end, it often comes back nearer to the middle. After about 50 runs, I'm still getting the intended result.
Also, a weird one: When I concentrate 'hard' on the influence, I get small movements to the intention. But when I 'relax' and breath out ready for the next 'push', I often get a dramatic 'surge' towards intention. Does this happen to anyone else?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Eh? I meant nobody's still arguing the "change a zero to a one" any more, at least not recently.

I am.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I am.

Please tell me you are kidding. Did you not understand the analogy?

Let me try with a coin example. The RPKP experiment would go something like this: I am going to flip a coin 1000 times. While I am flipping it, please try to make it come up heads more often than tails. At the end, we will count how many excessive heads there were, and calculate the probability of that happening due to chance.

Your suggested experiment might go something like this: I am going to flip a two-headed coin 1000 times. Please make it come up tails JUST ONCE.

Or maybe this: I am going to make a fair coin come up tails EVERY time (miraculously!). Please make it come up heads JUST ONCE (what?).

Suppose I made the claim that, by blowing on the coin mid-flight, I could cause heads to come up more often than should happen with no external influence (in the first experiment). Would you design experiments 2 and 3 to test this hypothesis?

Do you see why these experiments are fundamentally different?

Such a claim can ONLY be tested probabilistically. After the probability of it happening by chance has exceeded some constant (1 in a million? Billion? Trillion?), it would start to become foolhardy to claim that nothing is going on. How do your proposed experiments reveal anything at all?


EDIT: I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is the quantum mechanics portion that isn't clear to you. The stream of qubits being generated by the RNG can be seen as a stream of coins flipping in the air. Not until a measurement is made on a qubit does it "land." There is nothing being "changed," so no 0s can be "changed" to 1s. The qubits merely haven't "landed" yet.

(caveat: Whether or not the coherency of the qubit can be maintained in a classical stream is a quite separate discussion.)

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, using your 'coin down the bog' analogy, and your claim that 'If some scientists are crooks, it doesn't mean the rest are', why do you not accept Bierman's database over the archeologist who finds the roman coin? In archeology, we have the 'Piltdown Man' and other examples of fabrication. The field of parapsychology, otoh, is actually completely free of such grand fabrications, and the evidence we are discussing is completely devoid of any evidence of bad science, in comparison. Yet you scoop the coin from the bog and invest it in your own belief system. This is why I am sceptical of your skepticism, Claus.

Using your own evidence against you, you are a clearly biased hypocrite.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, using your 'coin down the bog' analogy, and your claim that 'If some scientists are crooks, it doesn't mean the rest are', why do you not accept Bierman's database over the archeologist who finds the roman coin?

Because you have not address my questions. Please do so, before we move on.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In archeology, we have the 'Piltdown Man' and other examples of fabrication. The field of parapsychology, otoh, is actually completely free of such grand fabrications, and the evidence we are discussing is completely devoid of any evidence of bad science, in comparison. Yet you scoop the coin from the bog and invest it in your own belief system. This is why I am sceptical of your skepticism, Claus.

You are utterly insane, if you can claim that the field of parapsychology is "completely free of such grand fabrications". You really are.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Using your own evidence against you, you are a clearly biased hypocrite.

Not at all. You, OTOH, have dodged questions again.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We can debate this all day long, but if we don't know what causes a wave function collapse, we're not going to get anywhere.

We agree that I collapse it when I run the clock experiment and observe the results. Right?

What about an experiment with a dog? Would that do it? How about a cockroach? How about a computer program?

What about copying the bit stream before we ever use it? Does a copy collapse it?

What if we run a program that analyzes the bit stream to see if it's statistically random? Does that do it?

This is all easily testable.

~~ Paul

[Kopji]

This was an interesting site and worth a visit. I thought from the visual feedback that I was having an effect, but the numeric report said I was not really. Got a "1".

The only evidence seems to be that my perception of my psychic ability is different than reality. I am perfectly willing to admit being wrong about something that seems so sure, even if I saw it with my own eyes.

This does not prove or disprove anything, except maybe that we see what we expect to see.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kopji
This was an interesting site and worth a visit. I thought from the visual feedback that I was having an effect, but the numeric report said I was not really. Got a "1".

The only evidence seems to be that my perception of my psychic ability is different than reality. I am perfectly willing to admit being wrong about something that seems so sure, even if I saw it with my own eyes.

This does not prove or disprove anything, except maybe that we see what we expect to see.

This is clearly false. We do not just see anything we expect. Our expectations, at the most, mould and shape our perceptions. I might expect my blind date to be gorgeous, that don't make her so!

[The Don]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I might expect my blind date to be gorgeous, that don't make her so!
That's what the beer goggles are for.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I might expect my blind date to be gorgeous, that don't make her so!

Don't forget to bring something for her seeing eye dog.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is clearly false. We do not just see anything we expect. Our expectations, at the most, mould and shape our perceptions. I might expect my blind date to be gorgeous, that don't make her so!

I don't think Mr K meant "see" literally. I interpreted his comment to be related to human tendancy to "count the hits and forget the misses" or subjective interpretation of results.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is clearly false. We do not just see anything we expect. Our expectations, at the most, mould and shape our perceptions. I might expect my blind date to be gorgeous, that don't make her so!



Once again, complete ignorance shows through.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
We can debate this all day long, but if we don't know what causes a wave function collapse, we're not going to get anywhere.


And indeed we don't. Here's some very interesting reading on the matter though:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/

Among the more interesting portions:


Let us state immediately that the (alleged) problem arises entirely from keeping the standard interpretation of the wave function unchanged, in particular assuming that its modulus squared gives the probability density of the position variable. However, as we have discussed in the previous section, there are much more serious reasons of principle which require to abandon the probabilistic interpretation and replace it either with one of those proposed by Bell, or, more appropriately in our opinion, with the mass density interpretation have outlined above.


That is to say, there's nothing inherent in QM that requires the probability distribution to correspond to the square of the amplitudes of the eigenvalues. Specifically, although standard QM predicts a 50/50 distribution, there are competing theories that do not.

Anyway, back to the original question of what collapses the RPKP stream... I (and probably you, and most) feel it is untenable to suggest that the data stream is uncollapsed by the time it reaches the subject. As far as what else might collapse a general system, who knows.

(edited for rambling:))

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Anyway, back to the original question of what collapses the RPKP stream... I (and probably you, and most) feel it is untenable to suggest that the data stream is uncollapsed by the time it reaches the subject.

Untenable? Why?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Untenable? Why?

In light of virtually all current theories of collapse. That is to say, I cannot find a reasonable theory of QM that allows for such preposterously large macroscopic coherence. Doesn't mean we won't find one tomorrow.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217


In light of virtually all current theories of collapse. That is to say, I cannot find a reasonable theory of QM that allows for such preposterously large macroscopic coherence. Doesn't mean we won't find one tomorrow.

What makes you such an authority? And what precisely is "macroscopic coherence"?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What makes you such an authority? And what precisely is "macroscopic coherence"?

I am no authority. I am only speaking from what I've learned of QM (for example, as part of the Quantum Circuits Group at the University of Michigan.) In addition, I enjoy reading about such things, and keeping somewhat up-to-date on advances.

Now, for your question: what is "macroscopic coherence?"


"What is quantum coherence? This refers to circumstances when large numbers of particles can collectively cooperate in a single quantum state..." -- Roger Penrose


Now, what is macroscopic? The division between microscopic and macroscopic is somewhat arbitrary. The link I provided above:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/

Suggests a boundary at ~10^-5 cm. That is to say, systems larger than this are subject to rapid (on the order of 10^-7 sec) decoherence if unprotected from their (noisy) environment:


It follows that a microscopic system undergoes a localization, on average, every hundred million years, while a macroscopic one undergoes a localization every 10^-7 seconds. With reference to the challenging version of the macro-objectification problem presented by Schrödinger with the famous example of his cat, J.S. Bell comments [Bell, 1987, p.44]: [within QMSL] the cat is not both dead and alive for more than a split second.


To assume that superposition is maintained across the trillions of atoms between the RNG and the observer is (far) overstepping the bounds of coherence observed in laboratory testing. And remember, QM has been tested quite thoroughly.

So to assert that the observer is collapsing the data stream as it gets to his computer seems to be untenable. However, if you propose that the subject is somehow able to collapse the stream closer to the source, before it decoheres... who knows, maybe there's something there. You'd have to show how the subject's mind could "connect" to that distant particle (I understand that RPKP is objective-based, but if you're wanting to explain it by QM...). And then you'd have to identify a theory that allows deviation from the standard stochastic interpretation (which predicts a 50/50 distribution). Such theories do exist, but I wouldn't really know how to go about applying them to this.