Global Consciousness Project [Archive]

Luke T.

23rd February 2005, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by paintedbird
I ran across this article and vaguely recalled GCP from a few years back. It looked like this would be the Forum to add this to even if it is in the realm of pseudo-science. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#

I heard of the Planetary Meditation Grid a few years ago, and ever since I have just loved the sound of that. I use the expression from time to time in a satirical way.

What the believers in these things don't realize is that I have neutralized the Planetary Meditation Grid (or GCP, if you wish) with a giant Negative Vibe Generator in my attic. I keep it well-maintained and running at all times.

What's really cool is that my NVG is powered by the Planetary Meditation Grid. The more these people meditate and think touchy-feely things, the higher wattage output of my NVG. It's a zero sum point energy perpetual motion quantum mechanical closed circuit. Beautiful!

That's why these experiments look the same as random chance.

:D
;)
:p

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
The first (and possibly the last) question I have is in regard to this:
I want an explanation for what exactly goes on inside that mysterious and wonderful black box, and until I see an answer, I'm not even interested in anything else they have to say. (I have a feeling that I'll be even less interested after I hear the answer, but I'd still like to hear it, if only for the entertainment value).

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html

Additionally, from that article

"They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits. "

Sounds like they are calibrated. Claus still claims "The "eggs" (REG) are not calibrated".

Dymanic

23rd February 2005, 09:02 PM

Yeah, thanks jzs. I dug that out too. Kind of cool, actually, first I'd heard of it. Now I'm ready with my next question: how much does one cost?

CurtC

23rd February 2005, 10:15 PM

Since these things started registering strange numbers at 6:40am EDT on Sept 11, 2001, the obvious conclusion is that they caused the horrific events of that day. These things should be outlawed.

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2005, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
Now I'm ready with my next question: how much does one cost?

One? There are 3 types of REGS. :)

"The Global Consciousness Project uses three different random event generators (REG or RNG)"

The PEAR Portable REG, the Mindsong MicroREG, and the Orion RNG. I have no idea how much the first two cost, but, from the link, it looks like the Orion is around $600 (http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/order.html).

I'm not sure if one gets a loaner REG if you sign up to participate in the GCP project, or not.

CFLarsen

24th February 2005, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Nice article, Claus.

Thanks!

CFLarsen

24th February 2005, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by jzs
That article is mere testimony.

It doesn't claim to be anything else. It's precisely the same as when reporters report from such a meeting. Is that bad? Is that wrong?

How would you go about writing an article about such a meeting?

Do I say anything that is factually not true, Justin? Do I draw the wrong conclusions?

Originally posted by jzs
Please give a specific example or two, with mathematics, in detail for all to see. Or, you can keep being vague.

Had you read the article, you would have discovered that I do actually give examples. Very specific. Not "vague".

Originally posted by jzs
The REG's are shown to produce numbers that pass tests for non-randomness.

Really? That's quite a claim, Justin. How were they shielded off from this "global consciousness" thingie?

Originally posted by jzs
How do you suggest they be "calibrated"? Make some useful suggestions. Don't just complain.

That's the point, Justin: Since they purport to record the effects of a "global consciousness", they can't be calibrated. How does one go about shielding an all-pervasive "global consciousness" off? Tell 6 billion people to stop living for a few hours while they run some tests?

CFLarsen

24th February 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by jzs
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html

Additionally, from that article

"They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits. "

Sounds like they are calibrated. Claus still claims "The "eggs" (REG) are not calibrated".

How are they shielded off from the "global consciousness"? You need to explain that, if you want to claim they are calibrated.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is that bad? Is that wrong? How would you go about writing an article about such a meeting? Do I say anything that is factually not true, Justin? Do I draw the wrong conclusions?

Typical 'answering' by asking 5x as many questions. Tactic ignored.

Had you read the article,

You often use that pathetic tactic of casting doubt if someone read the article they are critical of. Yes, I read it, and I read a lot of testimony and absolutely no analyis of the actual data was presented. That is a fact. From a skeptical standpoint it was just your subjective view of the evening and the readers are required to take your word on the events. For example, how can we verify what you said took place? Please, I want to know the answer.

Really? That's quite a claim, Justin. How were they shielded off from this "global consciousness" thingie?

I didn't claim they were shielded off, that is your strawman. I would like it if you could have a discussion without logical fallacies.

That's the point, Justin: Since they purport to record the effects of a "global consciousness", they can't be calibrated.

That is your claim. Where is your evidence?

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if they are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How are they shielded off from the "global consciousness"? You need to explain that, if you want to claim they are calibrated.

No, you claimed calibration is not possible. You need to explain why. Just asking 'because how do you turn off the global consciousness?' doesn't cut it.

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if the RNG's are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

CFLarsen

24th February 2005, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Typical 'answering' by asking 5x as many questions. Tactic ignored.

If you are not able to focus on more than one question at a time, let's take them one by one, then:

Is it bad to write an account of the meeting?

Originally posted by jzs
You often use that pathetic tactic of casting doubt if someone read the article they are critical of. Yes, I read it, and I read a lot of testimony and absolutely no analyis of the actual data was presented. That is a fact. From a skeptical standpoint it was just your subjective view of the evening and the readers are required to take your word on the events. For example, how can we verify what you said took place? Please, I want to know the answer.

Not pathetic, Justin. And you are perfectly aware of how you can verify what happened: Here, I'll quote for you:

Radin gave several examples of how GCP had detected "global consciousness". One was the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted of double-murder. We were shown a graph where - no doubt about that - the data formed a nice ascending curve in the minutes after the pre-show started, with cameras basically waiting for the verdict to be read. And yes, there was a nice, ascending curve in the minutes after the verdict was read.

However, about half an hour before the verdict, there was a similar curve ascending for no apparent reason. Radin's quick explanation before moving on to the next slide?

"I don't know what happened there."

It was not to be the last time we heard that answer.
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm)

You can find the same graph on page 167 in Radin's book "The conscious universe", which I know you have and even claim to have read. So, there's no excuse, Justin: You know damn well that it is not just my "subjective view of the evening". I back it up with facts.

Originally posted by jzs
I didn't claim they were shielded off, that is your strawman. I would like it if you could have a discussion without logical fallacies.

Are they shielded off, yes or no?

Originally posted by jzs
That is your claim. Where is your evidence?

I am asking: How does one shield off a "global consciousness" that is supposed to pervade everything?

Originally posted by jzs
I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if they are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

You clearly don't understand what calibrating means. Just because they pass a "test" does not mean that they are calibrated.

Think of how a thermometer is calibrated: We know that water boils at 100C at one atmosphere's pressure. So, we stick a thermometer into a pot of boiling water and reads it. If it says 100C, then we are half way there. We then stick it in freezer, where we know the temperature, and reads it again. And so on: We calibrate measuring tools by comparing them to already known circumstances.

I want to know how you can do that with an RNG that is under constant influence of a "global consciousness".

Zep

24th February 2005, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by jzs
No, you claimed calibration is not possible. You need to explain why. Just asking 'because how do you turn off the global consciousness?' doesn't cut it.

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if the RNG's are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect. Err, no. You are wrong here and Claus is right. Let me try to explain by way of analogy.

Suppose you were testing the hiss from two different sets of speakers in a car. You wanted to know which one was "quieter", had less hiss. But while you were testing, the car was being run through a carwash, then through heavy traffic, all with the radio on full blast. Out of all the measurements you get from in or near the speakers, which of it is the "hiss" you are trying to measure? It is literally drowned out by the background noise from and around the speakers. To get valid results you need to do it in a perfectly quiet place, don't you. Eliminate all but one variable in the test.

Now, back to PEAR's REGs. They are supposed to produce a perfectly random series of bits when they are not being influenced by "global consciousness". When they ARE being influenced, the random series of bits they produce supposedly becomes non-random - that's the nature of the experiment they are running: to find that non-randomness.

The problem is that this "global consciousness" cannot be turned off. It is omnipresent and ubiquitous, and therefore it MUST affect the REGs all the time. There is no switch to eliminate it, no lead shield thick enough, etc. So how can the REGs be "calibrated" in the first place under all this external influence of the very effect it is supposed to be measureing...?? And if they can't be calibrated, what good is the data they ultimately produce?

More to the point, if the calibrated state of a REG is no different from the data-collecting state, where is this supposed non-randomness coming from AFTER calibration that is being touted to the heavens? What IS the difference? Assuming the premise of the testing is sound (and that's a stretch in acceptance anyway), there's two possibilities: (a) the bit-stream generated is actually non-random after all; or (b) wishful thinking by means of data-mining.

Since PEAR are involved in this, I would refer you once again to their own paper admitting loss of effect following more extensive analysis of their own data. This may be a recurring theme with them...

Carn

24th February 2005, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by jzs

Please give a specific example or two, with mathematics, in detail for all to see. Or, you can keep being vague.

You miss here something.
To show that someone is doing something wrong with his selection of data, it is enough to show, that he does not give any good reasons for his selection of data.
No complicated math is needed, to show that someone didn't use math properly at all.

To show that the GCP does something wrong with his data, it is enough to ask why they look at the curve of 9/11 starting at 6.45am(or so) and why they do not look at the curve starting at 4.00 am or starting at 8.25 am. If there is nowhere something in their publications, that is related to such questions, you can safely ignore their conclusions, until they have an answer.

But what would disprove the GCP as a whole is showing that a curve derived from the output of a random number generator, will around a certain time always have several points, from which on the curve crosses the line, that marks the 1 in 20 chance, at some time in the future.

Ignoring this possibility seems to be the main GCP mistake: If my guess is correct, you will find in any random curve on any date something that looks like non random behaviour.
The GCP people could of course identify this problem, if they would compare their curves from "important" days with curves from "unimportant" days. I didn't find anything on their website, where they presented lots of curves, that indicated, that they even thought about this problem. Furthermore CFLarsen's questions mentioned in the article point exactly in the same direction and the GCP "guru" was even unable to think about them, likely he has never considered them.

This gives me the conclusion, that GCP are a bunch of incompetent scientist. And the reason why this "field of research" draws so many incompetent scientists, is that competent scientists and talented students recognize the problems and prefer to spend their life with useful and promising research.

It is even quite likely, that my guess has already been proven, then the whole GCP would be disproven, as they do not employ any method to exclude such random non-random looking intervals.

Does anyone know about some prove,
that in any big enough set of perfectly random
data there are always some intervals, that show non random behaviour?

Carn

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Zep

Now, back to PEAR's REGs. They are supposed to produce a perfectly random series of bits when they are not being influenced by "global consciousness". When they ARE being influenced, the random series of bits they produce supposedly becomes non-random - that's the nature of the experiment they are running: to find that non-randomness.

The problem is that this "global consciousness" cannot be turned off. It is omnipresent and ubiquitous,

You fail to see the point. If you had read what I wrote, to use you-know-who's line, all calibrated means is that it passed these DIEHARD tests. That's it. No 'are we able to turn the field off', no 'there is no way to shield it', etc. type of meaningless dodges. RNG calibration means they passed these tests.

CFLarsen

24th February 2005, 07:49 AM

Carn

24th February 2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by jzs
RNG calibration means they passed these tests.

The "eggs" did not pass all tests for non-randomness, that is obvious.

Why is it obvious?
The GNC people claim that there eggs produce sometimes non-random numbers, therefore their eggs are not random number generators.

You see, as soon as you detect non-randomness in your random number generator, you know it failed and is no random number generator.
This is a tricky problem for GCP people, to prove anything, they first have to show that they actually have random number generators - but then they start arguing, that their random number generators show non-random behaviour, that is a contradiction.

Carn

Zep

24th February 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by jzs
You fail to see the point. If you had read what I wrote, to use you-know-who's line, all calibrated means is that it passed these DIEHARD tests. That's it. No 'are we able to turn the field off', no 'there is no way to shield it', etc. type of meaningless dodges. RNG calibration means they passed these tests. I read what YOU wrote, and you are still way wrong. It's such a basic and obvious oversight in their methodology - one even a reasonable school student would notice. In order to calibrate the EGGs to provide a baseline from which to measure changes in randomness, the software must be run. The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running. Therefore the software can NEVER be calibrated. End of story.

Let's get it straight: Given the supposed nature of the testing instruments and the subject under test, there are NO methods that can reliably calibrate ANY instruments in order to measure the subject. None. Nada.

This means that these people are deluding themselves, and if so, what faith can you put in the accuracy and robustness of their outcomes? Alternatively they are deliberately running these "pseudo-experiments" for some other reason, which is in itself patent scientific fraud for a start.

Personally I think it's FAR more likely they are trying to fool the public into believing they are doing good science. My follow-up question would then be: Why try to fool the public, regardless of scientific dismissal of this as a crock of crap? I have my own answers to this, but you can draw your own conclusions.

amherst

24th February 2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Err, no. You are wrong here and Claus is right. Let me try to explain by way of analogy.

Suppose you were testing the hiss from two different sets of speakers in a car. You wanted to know which one was "quieter", had less hiss. But while you were testing, the car was being run through a carwash, then through heavy traffic, all with the radio on full blast. Out of all the measurements you get from in or near the speakers, which of it is the "hiss" you are trying to measure? It is literally drowned out by the background noise from and around the speakers. To get valid results you need to do it in a perfectly quiet place, don't you. Eliminate all but one variable in the test.

Now, back to PEAR's REGs. They are supposed to produce a perfectly random series of bits when they are not being influenced by "global consciousness". When they ARE being influenced, the random series of bits they produce supposedly becomes non-random - that's the nature of the experiment they are running: to find that non-randomness.

The problem is that this "global consciousness" cannot be turned off. It is omnipresent and ubiquitous, and therefore it MUST affect the REGs all the time. There is no switch to eliminate it, no lead shield thick enough, etc. So how can the REGs be "calibrated" in the first place under all this external influence of the very effect it is supposed to be measureing...?? And if they can't be calibrated, what good is the data they ultimately produce?
The Global Consciousness Project is set up to test what happens to REGs when the minds of many people are simultaneously focused on a single thing. When the global consciousness is not focused on something, the REGs are predicted to stay random, and not be influenced---this is when they are calibrated. When the consciousness of many is focused on the same thing, the predicted effect is non-randomness. Order among minds is predicted to cause the same in REGs.
More to the point, if the calibrated state of a REG is no different from the data-collecting state, where is this supposed non-randomness coming from AFTER calibration that is being touted to the heavens? What IS the difference?
The difference is that during the control state, group focusing isn't occurring, while in the experimental state it is.
Assuming the premise of the testing is sound (and that's a stretch in acceptance anyway), there's two possibilities: (a) the bit-stream generated is actually non-random after all; or (b) wishful thinking by means of data-mining.

Since PEAR are involved in this, I would refer you once again to their own paper admitting loss of effect following more extensive analysis of their own data. This may be a recurring theme with them... In the RedNova article skeptic Chris French was quoted as saying, "The Global Consciousness Project has generated some very intriguing results that cannot be readily dismissed. I'm involved in similar work to see if we get the same results. We haven't managed to do so yet but it's only an early experiment. The jury's still out." French, like most members of this forum, is a hardcore skeptic. Though, unlike most, his skepticism didn't cause him to blindly dismiss the research he was commenting on. I think he'd agree with me that the majority of the arguments that have been made against the GCP on this forum are nothing but more fine examples of dogmatism.

amherst

Pragmatist

24th February 2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by amherst
The Global Consciousness Project is set up to test what happens to REGs when the minds of many people are simultaneously focused on a single thing. When the global consciousness is not focused on something, the REGs are predicted to stay random, and not be influenced---this is when they are calibrated. When the consciousness of many is focused on the same thing, the predicted effect is non-randomness. Order among minds is predicted to cause the same in REGs.

Fine. So how do you know when large numbers of minds are not focussed on a single thing? And in advance too - presumably you have to arrange the calibration test at least somewhat in advance.

As for large numbers of minds focussed on the same thing, I guess you have to eliminate holy days, because in religions large numbers of people focus on the same thing at the same time. The worst of them are the Muslims because they all focus several times a day. So we have to find a non-Muslim window at least, because there are a lot of Muslims. Forget Saturdays (Jews/Sabbath) and Sundays (Christians). And then we have to make sure there are no major baseball/football etc., etc., games going on anywhere in the world. Oh, and we have to make sure there aren't any really popular shows on TV anywhere at that time. We have to make sure there are no adverse weather events, hurricanes, tornados, volcanos, earthquakes anywhere on earth. And we have to politely request everybody in battle anywhere to please stop fighting wars until our REG's are ready. We have to cancel all elections. And we definitely have to stop all state and national lotteries. We have to make sure it's not night with the moon out, lots of people focus on the moon.

We also have to prevent solar flares - O.K. people don't focus on them but they may affect the generator circuitry.

And so on. Yes, it must be real easy to calibrate those REG's! :)

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You still don't get it. The tests were worthless. Try to understand Zep's car speaker analogy.

You and Zep are wrong in saying they weren't calibrated.

If you had read my post, calibration simply means passing those tests. And they did. Therefore, they were calibrated.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Carn
The "eggs" did not pass all tests for non-randomness, that is obvious.

Why is it obvious?

It is not obvious. The Orion, for example, did in fact pass those tests. The tests in question are Marsaglia's DIEHARD tests.

You see, as soon as you detect non-randomness in your random number generator, you know it failed and is no random number generator.

It is possible to get extremely long and extremely short runs in a RNG or a coin flip, etc., yet the process is still random.

Pragmatist

24th February 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by jzs
It is possible to get extremely long and extremely short runs in a RNG or a coin flip, etc., yet the process is still random.

True, but...

From the technical data of one of the RNG manufacturers, regarding the randomness of their generators:

http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html

Due to the limited knowledge we have of the psi phenomenon we cannot specify a control condition which is guaranteed psi-free. There fore one might occasionally also find deviations in the no-subject condition. Just report these.

Even the manufacturer thinks it might be a problem.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Zep

one even a reasonable school student would notice.

Ad hom.

The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running. Therefore the software can NEVER be calibrated. End of story.

If you had read what I wrote, ALL calibrated means is that the tests for randomness were passed. That is all. Any speculation about what the hypothetical global consciousness can or cannot effect are moot. To say they are not calibrated is false. And the RNG's are HARDWARE, not software. Please, read that entire paragraph again.

Personally I think it's FAR more likely they are trying to fool the public into believing they are doing good science.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, they do make their data available http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html). Why don't you analyze it instead of continue your embarassing non-scientific armchair speculations?

Zep

24th February 2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by jzs

Ad hom.

About you, no. About them, yes.

If you had read what I wrote, ALL calibrated means is that the tests for randomness were passed. That is all. Any speculation about what the hypothetical global consciousness can or cannot effect are moot. To say they are not calibrated is false. And the RNG's are HARDWARE, not software. Please, read that entire paragraph again.

(I wonder if YOU have read it yourself, but anyway...)

So... You are agreeing that their definition of "random" is basically that the box turns on successfully?

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, they do make their data available http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html). Why don't you analyze it instead of continue your embarassing non-scientific armchair speculations?

I'm now fairly certain you have been "blinded by science" here, jzs. That reference you gave was to the analysis that has been applied to the data after it was obtained. Now, given that the experiment premise and design, equipment design, and data-gathering process is suspect anyway, how much credibility do YOU think should be given to these analysis results?

Let me put it more simply for you so you understand: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. OK?

And given that you know nothing of my education or what I do for a living, that's not an ad hom either, is it! :nope: :)

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Zep

About you, no. About them, yes.

Ad hom is a logical fallacy, Zep.

So... You are agreeing that their definition of "random" is basically that the box turns on successfully?

For the upteenth time, that is the definition of 'calibration' in the sense of calibrating a RNG.

I'm now fairly certain you have been "blinded by science" here, jzs.

Ad hom.

They make their data available at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html. Are you going to analyze it?

That reference you gave was to the analysis that has been applied to the data after it was obtained.

I would be interested in hearing how one analyzes data before the data is obtained. :rolleyes:

Let me put it more simply for you so you

Ad hom.

Are you going to analyze their data, Zep?

Zep

24th February 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by jzs

Ad hom is a logical fallacy, Zep.

No, in this case it refers simply to the act of "name calling". Using that as a method of argument is called "argumentum ad hominem", which is indeed a logical fallacy.

For the upteenth time, that is the definition of 'calibration' in the sense of calibrating a RNG.

OK, so you accept their definition of "calibration", even though it is no such thing. Fine. In which case please expect your car to tune and repair itself from all damage any time you turn it on. :)

Ad hom.

They make their data available at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html. Are you going to analyze it?

You have no idea what you are asking, do you. This IS an analysis you have referenced. It is an analysis of their own raw data. To analyze analyses is doing a meta-analysis. What I suspect you REALLY want me to do is analyse their raw data again - that is, parallel this analysis. Since the raw data is patent crap from a totally dubious process, why would I do this?

I would be interested in hearing how one analyzes data before the data is obtained. :rolleyes:

Tell us all you know about setting baselines of measurement.

Ad hom.

Are you going to analyze their data, Zep?

When it is worth anyone's time, yes I will.
Incidentally, your name isn't Kumar on alternate days, by any chance?

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 12:16 AM

OK, so you accept their definition of "calibration", even though it is no such thing. Fine.

I accept their, and anyone who works with RNGs's, definition, and they did calibrate them, since to calibrate a RNG means it passes these tests. Fine.

In which case please expect your car to tune and repair itself from all damage any time you turn it on.

Non sequitor.

[]b
You have no idea what you are asking, do you.
[/b]

Ad hom.

This IS an analysis you have referenced. It is an analysis of their own raw data.

No, I did not reference an analysis. From that page, go to the http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html link. You can download the raw data. Will you do it and will you analyze it?

What I suspect you REALLY want me to do is analyse their raw data again

Again? You haven't done it yet. But yes, it would be nice if you analyze their actual data, as I have been suggesting, instead of theorizing on some hypothesized global fields' characteristics and dismissing the whole thing based on bias with no actual inspection.

Since the raw data is patent crap from a totally dubious process, why would I do this?

It is merely output from RNG's. Why do you dismiss it? Do you dismiss data from ALL and ANY RNG's? No?

Tell us all you know about setting baselines of measurement.

You didn't answer my request. You criticized them for analyzing the data after it was obtained. So I requested to know just how one goes about analyzing data before the data is obtained. You then "answered" me with a request of your own. Why don't you try answering my request first?

Incidentally, your name isn't Kumar on alternate days, by any chance?

Ad hom.

Zep

25th February 2005, 12:42 AM

Jzs, here's a few random numbers I just generated. Don't ask how or where I got them, just analyse them for me, OK?

11111111111111111111111111000000000001111111110110 10101010000000001011010101010101011111111111111110 00000000000000111111111111110101010101111111111111 10101010101010101010101101010100101010011111111111 1010101010101010101111111111010101010

Now this set, same method.

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111

And now these, same method.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000

DON'T ASK WHERE THEY CAME FROM! DON'T ASK IF I CALIBRATED MY DATA GENERATOR! JUST BELIEVE ME - THIS IS GREAT DATA!

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Jzs, here's a few random numbers I just generated. Don't ask how or where I got them, just analyse them for me, OK?
(snip)

"Analyze them for" you, how exactly? What are you asking me to do with them?

Zep, will you analyze their raw data or not? Their RNG's have passed these tests. You are asking me to look at your artificially constructed examples. On the other hand, I'm asking you to look at their actual data. ie. data that is from their real ongoing study, not aritifically constructed data that is only used for 'stumpers' in threads... So no, I won't humor your artifically constructed examples.

Will you get serious and look at their actual data?

DON'T ASK WHERE THEY CAME FROM! DON'T ASK IF I CALIBRATED MY DATA GENERATOR! JUST BELIEVE ME - THIS IS GREAT DATA!

No to all of those. The CGP people tell you where they came from, even offering schematics of these RNG's. The RNG's manufacturer says that it has passed the DIEHARD tests- they have been calibrated. Moreover, one can verify that for themselves.

The difference is, the CGP people tell you where and how they got them. With you, I have no way of knowing what RNG you are using, if it is hardware or a PRNG software, or if you just typed those in (more likely), nor do you allow me to get more data from your RNG. What you are doing is not scientific inquiry.

Zep

25th February 2005, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by jzs
I accept their, and anyone who works with RNGs's, definition, and they did calibrate them, since to calibrate a RNG means it passes these tests. Fine.

[ad-hom]You're a twit.[/ad-hom]

Non sequitor.

Non-answer.

Ad hom.

No, I did not reference an analysis. From that page, go to the http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html link. You can download the raw data. Will you do it and will you analyze it?

Well gee, Slick! THEY sure think the page you referenced is about "summaries and analysis"!
Introduction

The data collection and analytical software remain under development, but beginning with 1998-08-05, a number of displays in table and graphic form have been available. The following remarks are intended to help with the interpretation of these data summaries, and this page will be updated as we add other perspectives for analysis and display. To see recent and current analyses relevant to specific hypotheses, go to the current results page.Want to have a rethink about that?

Again? You haven't done it yet. But yes, it would be nice if you analyze their actual data, as I have been suggesting, instead of theorizing on some hypothesized global fields' characteristics and dismissing the whole thing based on bias with no actual inspection.

Your insistence does nothing to make their raw data any less useless.

It is merely output from RNG's. Why do you dismiss it? Do you dismiss data from ALL and ANY RNG's? No?

Slippery-slope argument, Slick. Try again!

You didn't answer my request. You criticized them for analyzing the data after it was obtained. So I requested to know just how one goes about analyzing data before the data is obtained. You then "answered" me with a request of your own. Why don't you try answering my request first?

OK, I analysed it.

Now tell us all you know about setting baselines of measurement, Slick.

Ad hom.

Standard response when you don't like the answers, Slick?Are you SURE you aren't channelling Kumar or something? You're getting awful fixated on the results although the whole process being employed is patent tripe right out of the box...

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 01:16 AM

You're a twit

Ad hom.

The fact is that they did calibrate the RNGs, since to calibrate a RNG means it passes these tests.

Well gee, Slick! THEY sure think the page you referenced is about "summaries and analysis"!

The quote you typed, "summaries and analysis" isn't even on the page. I searched for it, no match.

The page is about summaries and data access. One can download their raw data for analysis, as well as link to summaries of their results so far.

Want to have a rethink about that?

Zep, let me remind you, you said, after I posted that link, that

"This IS an analysis you have referenced."

which is entirely mistaken.

There is absolutely no analysis presented on that page (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html), and anyone can verify that.

Around the middle of that page, there is a link (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html) where anyone can access their raw data. This is what I have constantly been directing you toward.

Your insistence does nothing to make their raw data any less useless.

It is merely output from RNG's. You have yet to coherently explain why analyzing RNG output is "useless".

OK, I analysed it.

I'm sure you have.. Please show us your work. "Statistics on the table, please".

Are you SURE you aren't channelling Kumar or something? You're getting awful fixated on the results although the whole process being employed is patent tripe right out of the box...

Ad hom. And 4 "slicks", whatever that means. Please, stay focused, stay skeptical and scientific.

Oleron

25th February 2005, 01:18 AM

Can someone please tell me what the supposed connection is between global conciousness and a black box spewing out 1's and 0's?

It's like trying to measure sound with a slide rule.

It reminds me of the old urban myth - If the Chinese all jumped at the same time, it would knock the earth of its axis.

It is just as valid to speculate that milk goes sour quicker when all minds are focussed on a single event. Maybe we need an experiment to test this. 'The global sourness ratio'.

Yeah right.

CFLarsen

25th February 2005, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by amherst
The Global Consciousness Project is set up to test what happens to REGs when the minds of many people are simultaneously focused on a single thing. When the global consciousness is not focused on something, the REGs are predicted to stay random, and not be influenced---this is when they are calibrated. When the consciousness of many is focused on the same thing, the predicted effect is non-randomness. Order among minds is predicted to cause the same in REGs.

But the REGs are not staying random when GC is not "focused". Radin's own data show this.

Originally posted by amherst
The difference is that during the control state, group focusing isn't occurring, while in the experimental state it is.

Just what is "group focusing"? It clearly isn't when 9-11 happened, because the fluctuations begin before the attack started.

Originally posted by amherst
In the RedNova article skeptic Chris French was quoted as saying, "The Global Consciousness Project has generated some very intriguing results that cannot be readily dismissed. I'm involved in similar work to see if we get the same results. We haven't managed to do so yet but it's only an early experiment. The jury's still out." French, like most members of this forum, is a hardcore skeptic. Though, unlike most, his skepticism didn't cause him to blindly dismiss the research he was commenting on. I think he'd agree with me that the majority of the arguments that have been made against the GCP on this forum are nothing but more fine examples of dogmatism.

The eggs are not calibrated, OK? Whatever comes out of them is worthless.

CFLarsen

25th February 2005, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by jzs
You and Zep are wrong in saying they weren't calibrated.

If you had read my post, calibration simply means passing those tests. And they did. Therefore, they were calibrated.

Calibration
A set of gradations that show positions or values.
Dictionary.com

What "positions" or "values" do these eggs show, Justin? Do you honestly think that the data that comes out of the eggs is of value?

athon

25th February 2005, 01:47 AM

jzs, can I emphasise just one single question that both Zed and Claus are trying to get an answer to;

regardless of whether the machine is by definition 'calibrated' or not, how can you get a comparible baseline in an experiment where it is impossible to distinguish the independent variable from a control? The RNG has to be run in isolation from the event it is recording to form a negative control. This is what people are asking.

Thanks.,

Athon

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Oleron
Can someone please tell me what the supposed connection is between global conciousness and a black box spewing out 1's and 0's?

That is precisely what they are investigating, if deviations in the RNG output correspond with engaging global events.

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But the REGs are not staying random when GC is not "focused". Radin's own data show this.

What do you mean by "not staying random"? And please show exactly where the RNG's are "not staying random".

Just what is "group focusing"? It clearly isn't when 9-11 happened, because the fluctuations begin before the attack started.

Show the specific "Radin's data" you are referring to, please.

The eggs are not calibrated, OK?

Not ok, not at all. You are mistaken.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html

"They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits."

RNG calibration means passing the tests. They have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.

Whatever comes out of them is worthless.

You have yet to show any evidence for that. A fine piece of scoffing, however.

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What "positions" or "values" do these eggs show, Justin?

All calibration means when talking about RNGs is that they've passed the DIEHARD tests. The RNG's have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.

The "positions" or "values" that are returned in the calibration are p-values. ie: page 28 of the .pdf file

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/st511/schafer/displays_2nd_ed/overheads1_8.PDF

The page

http://random.com.hr/products/random/manual/html/Diehard.html

states

"Most of the tests in DIEHARD return a p-value, which should be uniform
on [0,1) if the input file contains truly independent random bits."

So you get these bitstreams, compute a test statistic, get a p-value, do this for different generated bitstreams, get a bunch of p-values, then do a test to see if these p-values are uniformly distributed over [0,1). If the test shows they are uniform, then your RNG is behaving in a random manner.

Do you honestly think that the data that comes out of the eggs is of value?

Yes, I do. They are just RNG's afterall; nothing magical about that. However, you are getting personal, no surprise. My honesty has nothing to do with the actual data. Please stay focused here. "Only evidence counts", you'd do well to remember what you've told others..

T'ai Chi

25th February 2005, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by athon

how can you get a comparible baseline in an experiment where it is impossible to distinguish the independent variable from a control?

It is a RNG, so we know its mean, its spread; we basically know everything about what it should be producing. These are RNG's that have been used in other applications for a while. No odd results.

When their ouput is looked at large scale at interseting times, there are some results that seem out of place for otherwise perfectly operating RNG's, and that is what is being studied.

CFLarsen

25th February 2005, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by jzs
What do you mean by "not staying random"? And please show exactly where the RNG's are "not staying random".

I already showed you the OJ example. Why did you ignore that? There are data fluctuations when there shouldn't be any. Please explain these fluctuations.

Originally posted by jzs
Show the specific "Radin's data" you are referring to, please.

Take a look at the graph "Terrorist Attacks, Sept 11, 2001"
Source (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/911formal.html)

The data shows that fluctuations began before the attacks. How do you explain that? Yes, I am asking you.

Originally posted by jzs
"They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits."

RNG calibration means passing the tests. They have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.

Please explain how you can shield off the eggs from a "global consciousness".

CFLarsen

25th February 2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by jzs
So you get these bitstreams, compute a test statistic, get a p-value, do this for different generated bitstreams, get a bunch of p-values, then do a test to see if these p-values are uniformly distributed over [0,1). If the test shows they are uniform, then your RNG is behaving in a random manner.

No, no, no, Justin. What you get is a change in the bitstream that is not random. But, as we have seen, the eggs are not calibrated, because they cannot possibly be calibrated. Garbage in, garbage out.

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, I do. They are just RNG's afterall; nothing magical about that. However, you are getting personal, no surprise. My honesty has nothing to do with the actual data. Please stay focused here. "Only evidence counts", you'd do well to remember what you've told others..

You keep wanting this to be personal, so you won't have to address the points. Your choice.

CFLarsen

25th February 2005, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by jzs
When their ouput is looked at large scale at interseting times, there are some results that seem out of place for otherwise perfectly operating RNG's, and that is what is being studied.

But they don't coincide with actual events, do they?

PixyMisa

25th February 2005, 05:10 AM

First, you create a control universe...

Carn

25th February 2005, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
First, you create a control universe...

:dl:

Maybe global concsious has some weak distant dependance, then a control earth would be enough.

:crazy:

Carn

Zep

26th February 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by jzs
All calibration means when talking about RNGs is that they've passed the DIEHARD tests. The RNG's have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.

The "positions" or "values" that are returned in the calibration are p-values. ie: page 28 of the .pdf file

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/st511/schafer/displays_2nd_ed/overheads1_8.PDF

The page

http://random.com.hr/products/random/manual/html/Diehard.html

states

"Most of the tests in DIEHARD return a p-value, which should be uniform
on [0,1) if the input file contains truly independent random bits."

So you get these bitstreams, compute a test statistic, get a p-value, do this for different generated bitstreams, get a bunch of p-values, then do a test to see if these p-values are uniformly distributed over [0,1). If the test shows they are uniform, then your RNG is behaving in a random manner. Wonderful!

Now tell us all, Justin - Was all this "calibration" of these fabulous EGGs done while "Global Conciousness" was turned ON or turned OFF?

Hint: You can't turn it off...

CFLarsen

26th February 2005, 08:26 AM

So, a global consciousness can influence a bitstream? Flip a 0 to a 1?

Where can we find a really long string of bits over a really long time? Oh, yes, computers! They are everywhere, and - by golly - if the string of bits isn't completely correct, your computer will crash. Your car, having computers, will stop working. People will die from malfunctioning equipment that keep them alive in hospitals. Planes, being loaded with computers, will fall from out of the skies like snowflakes. The havoc is not only immense, it is world-wide.

Justin, don't you think that people would start noticing, when all these things happen during a "global" (haha) event such as the OJ case? The Olympics? 9-11?

Or were they simply too busy observing the "global" event?

T'ai Chi

26th February 2005, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Hint: You can't turn it off...

We don't even know if 'it' exists, so what is the issue?

All RNG calibration means is that the RNG has passed the tests. They have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.

Anything else you read into the situation; what the hypothesized global consciousness can or cannot do, is irrelevant.

PixyMisa

26th February 2005, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, a global consciousness can influence a bitstream? Flip a 0 to a 1?

Where can we find a really long string of bits over a really long time? Oh, yes, computers! They are everywhere, and - by golly - if the string of bits isn't completely correct, your computer will crash.
That might not be the best argument. :p

But it does suggest that the level of influence is somewhat less than... Let me work this out... One in ten quadrillion or so, just based on my Windows PC here.

And for some reason, Linux is an order of magnitude more resistent to psychic effects. Useful trait, that.

PixyMisa

26th February 2005, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by jzs
We don't even know if 'it' exists, so what is the issue?
If you want to test for it, the test needs to be valid. It ain't.
All RNG calibration means is that the RNG has passed the tests. They have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.
Nope. If the hypothesis is true, then the calibration is invalid. It's like trying to calibrate a set of scales while a litter of kittens is jumping all over them. Except that you can remove the litter of kittens - and they are observable in other ways.

The hypothesized "Global Consciousness" cannot be otherwise observed (that anyone has said), and cannot be removed or screened. So you cannot calibrate the RNG against this hypothesis.

Zep

27th February 2005, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by jzs
We don't even know if 'it' exists, so what is the issue?

So if we don't know it exists, how do we know that it DIDN'T affect the calibration at all?

All RNG calibration means is that the RNG has passed the tests. They have passed the tests. Therefore they are calibrated.

Also known as "calibration by proclamation"? Do you agree that is good science?

Anything else you read into the situation; what the hypothesized global consciousness can or cannot do, is irrelevant.

Um, no. It's entirely the point. If you are chasing some phenomenon then it would make a modicum of sense to use an instrument that you AT LEAST have confidence can measure this phenomenon to some degree, or even just confirm it exists.

If the measuring instrument is made WITHOUT CARING if it can actually measure it's target phenomenon or not, well...doesn't that sound pathetic and quite ridiculous just to start with? (The word I was going to use initially was "unhinged", btw...)

CFLarsen

27th February 2005, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by jzs
We don't even know if 'it' exists, so what is the issue?

But "it" exists, because we can see it from the data coming out of the eggs. Isn't that the whole idea??

If the eggs doesn't measure "it", what the heck are they doing??

Stimpson J. Cat

27th February 2005, 04:21 AM

Some things that should be pointed out about this type of statistical analysis:

First of all, the calibration issue. What can be done, and what appears to have been done, is to take randomly selected streams of data from the RNG, of the same length as will be used experimentally, and calculate their statistical properties. This then serves as a base-line, or control data. Alternatively if this control data matches the expected statistical predictions, then on can just use those.

The problem with this idea of calibration, with respect to this experiment, is that they have not controlled for outside influences on the RNG's. After all, the assumption of the experiment is that something is influencing their behavior. So how do we know that nothing is influencing their behavior when we collect the control data?

Now one could argue that since the experiment is trying to discover if anything is influencing their behavior, then this doesn't matter. In this case the argument would be that the purpose of the calibration is simply to make sure that the behavior is not always being externally influenced, so that they can look for the cases when it is.

The problem with this is that even if we find statistically significant evidence of external influence, we have no idea what it is. It could be anything. It could be solar or even inter-stellar radiation interfering. It could be a slight bias due to increased radio-wave activity. It could be any number of things we would never even think of.

It also does no good to argue that the RNG's are "shielded" from such electronic or environmental influence, because no shielding is perfect. And since they are looking for things at the very fringe of detectability, any bias, no matter how tiny, could be responsible for the effects.

But all of this is irrelevant, because the statistical methods they have used to claim that they have found such evidence of external influence, are simply flawed. The fact is that you simply cannot evaluate the probability of a single statistical anomaly accompanying a single world event. What they are doing is simply data mining.

What they would have to do is to clearly define what constitutes a statistical anomaly, and also what constitutes a world event. Then they could look at long term data, and determine whether there is a statistically significant correlation between the timing and occurrence of the two. As it is, all they are doing is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Indeed, it is not possible for them to not do this, since they do not bother to define what constitutes a hit until they find one, and do not define what constitutes a miss at all.

Dr. Stupid

Zep

27th February 2005, 05:02 AM

Mr Feline, this is what we have been trying to tell someone for some posts now. Thank you for spelling it out in full, but we wonder if it will still sink in...

T'ai Chi

27th February 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Nope. If the hypothesis is true, then the calibration is invalid.

No, that is nonsense, because, again, you are hypothesizing what the hypothetical global consciousness hypothetically is capable of doing or not doing, and all calibration means in the case of RNGs is that the RNG did not fail the tests. That is all.

Zep

27th February 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by jzs

No, that is nonsense, because, again, you are hypothesizing what the hypothetical global consciousness hypothetically is capable of doing or not doing, and all calibration means in the case of RNGs is that the RNG did not fail the tests. That is all. [/B]The problem is (for the hundredth time) that those TESTS were a load of hogwash in the first place. It certainly seems if they weren't incompetent then they were deliberate misrepresentations. Therefore the "calibration" phase was invalid. Therefore the data gathering phase accumulated meaningless numbers. Therefore the analysis of those numbers was meaningless graphs. Therefore the excited claims were based on those graphs were...bovine excreta.

And the people who trumpeted those claims, knowing all this was indeed BS and who are refusing to respond to the questions about their methodologies??? What do we think of them?

T'ai Chi

28th February 2005, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Zep
The problem is (for the hundredth time) that those TESTS were a load of hogwash in the first place.

The DIEHARD tests?

CFLarsen

28th February 2005, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by jzs
The DIEHARD tests?

The Orion RNG was tested this way: (http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html)

Each RNG passes a 256 run random ness test before being shipped. Each run consists of 8192 8-bit samples.

That gives us 2,097,152 bytes.

However, the DIEHARD tests require more (http://random.com.hr/products/random/manual/html/Diehard.html):

The minimum length of a tested file is 10 000 000 bytes.

The Orion RNG is not tested for as long as the DIEHARD test requires. Therefore, the Orion RNG could not have passed the DIEHARD test.

1st March 2005, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by jzs
It is a RNG, so we know its mean, its spread; we basically know everything about what it should be producing. These are RNG's that have been used in other applications for a while. No odd results.

What are their frequency analysis characteristics in both short and long-term?

2nd March 2005, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by jj
What are their frequency analysis characteristics in both short and long-term?

And the only sound we hear is the sound of the wind
As it blows through the town, weave and spin, weave and spin.

Zep

2nd March 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by jzs

The DIEHARD tests? [/B] Yes, THOSE tests. The statistical analysis of the DIEHARD tests are fine on a RNG that is NOT being influenced by the testing factor. It's just that in this case they were run on data that was generated with "global conciousness" turned ON. And the whole point of the exercise with the EGGs is that they measure the CHANGES in the RNG output when "global conciousness" is turned ON.

So you now have a completely contradictory situation.

a) The EGGs produced a statistically perfect random bit stream that passed the DIEHARD tests, with GC turned ON.

b) The EGGs then produced a supposed non-random bit stream, with no change in operation and again with GC turned ON.

There are two logical reasons to explain this situation without having to resort to woo-woo ones:

a) The DIEHARD tests are NOT a good test of statistical randomness. I find that difficult to sustain, but others may well know better than I.

b) The "supposed non-random bit stream" was no such thing. The "peaks in the data at critical times" were merely wishful thinking on the part of the people running the EGG experiments based on random fluctuations in the data.

Given the previous history of the people involved and their reluctance to address a lot of issues to do with their objectivity (see above ), I find this a more likely scenario. I gave you a reference to a previous effort of a similar situation, plus my commentary as to why I think that happened. I'm sure you will see there are parallels with this situation.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

2nd March 2005, 07:18 PM

jzs said:
These are RNG's that have been used in other applications for a while. No odd results.
No odd results? Why not? Are they somehow isolated from global consciousness?

Wouldn't it be cool if RNGs really generate streams of all 1s, and only generate random streams when influenced by global consciousness?

~~ Paul

rwguinn

2nd March 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No odd results? Why not? Are they somehow isolated from global consciousness?

Wouldn't it be cool if RNGs really generate streams of all 1s, and only generate random streams when influenced by global consciousness?

~~ Paul

good point
I liken the whole argument to calibrating a flow meter while it is immersed in the flow it is to measure. A fluctuating flow. .:D

Can't be done.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2005, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Wouldn't it be cool if RNGs really generate streams of all 1s, and only generate random streams when influenced by global consciousness?

That's all you need to do: Have the eggs spit out all 1s and look for 0s.

In fact, all that is needed is one 0. Kinda like a white fowl of the Corvus family...

CFLarsen

2nd March 2005, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by rwguinn
I liken the whole argument to calibrating a flow meter while it is immersed in the flow it is to measure. A fluctuating flow. .:D

Good analogy.

3rd March 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by jj
What are their frequency analysis characteristics in both short and long-term?

Well? I'm still waiting. What's the long-term and short-term autocorrelations look like, and on what scales?

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by jj
What are their frequency analysis characteristics in both short and long-term?

That is extremely vague. Could you be more specific?

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 11:19 AM

Bumpety-bump.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Zep
The statistical analysis of the DIEHARD tests are fine on a RNG that is NOT being influenced by the testing factor. It's just that in this case they were run on data that was generated with "global conciousness" turned ON.

I think you are trying to confuse things here. No one is talking about "turning off" and "turning on" but you. They look at the RNG output when certain events occur.

a) The EGGs produced a statistically perfect random bit stream that passed the DIEHARD tests, with GC turned ON.

b) The EGGs then produced a supposed non-random bit stream, with no change in operation and again with GC turned ON.

There are two logical reasons to explain this situation without having to resort to woo-woo ones:

a) The DIEHARD tests are NOT a good test of statistical randomness. I find that difficult to sustain, but others may well know better than I.

b) The "supposed non-random bit stream" was no such thing. The "peaks in the data at critical times" were merely wishful thinking on the part of the people running the EGG experiments based on random fluctuations in the data.

I don't agree with a) at all. It could be b), sure. You also leave out a c) possibility, that there may be something going on that has unlikely RNG output occur on days with events.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The Orion RNG is not tested for as long as the DIEHARD test requires. Therefore, the Orion RNG could not have passed the DIEHARD test.

I'm going from the Orion webpage which states:

"The Random Number Generator parallel port dongle(Mac/DOS/Win) is the first true RNG to pass Marsaglia's famous DIEHARD randomness test."

Read what they wrote again:

"Each RNG passes a 256 run random ness test before being shipped. Each run consists of 8192 8-bit samples.

You wrote:

"That gives us 2,097,152 bytes."

That number, times 256.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by jzs
I'm going from the Orion webpage which states:

"The Random Number Generator parallel port dongle(Mac/DOS/Win) is the first true RNG to pass Marsaglia's famous DIEHARD randomness test."

Read what they wrote again:

"Each RNG passes a 256 run random ness test before being shipped. Each run consists of 8192 8-bit samples.

You wrote:

"That gives us 2,097,152 bytes."

That number, times 256.

No, Justin. Please learn the difference between BITS and BYTES.

1 Byte is (usually) 8 bits. With me so far?

Each run consists of 8192 bytes. Still with me?

They do 256 runs. That's (8 x 256) bytes = 2,097,152 bytes. Are you there, Justin?

BYTES, Justin.

The DIEHARD test requires 10,000,000 bytes.

BYTES, Justin.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, Justin. Please learn the difference between BITS and BYTES.

Yes, I see my error, thanks.

I fail to see how the page you cited says that a minimun of 10-whatever bytes is required to test a RNG. Can you find something like from the creator of the DIEHARD test or something more official?

If you can, you should contact the Orion people and see what they have to say.

Also, on the Orion page under "The test data" I see they didn't specifically mention the DIEHARD tests here.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, I see my error, thanks.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by jzs
I fail to see how the page you cited says that a minimun of 10-whatever bytes is required to test a RNG. Can you find something like from the creator of the DIEHARD test or something more official?

If you can, you should contact the Orion people and see what they have to say.

Also, on the Orion page under "The test data" I see they didn't specifically mention the DIEHARD tests here.

Justin, what part of "The minimum length of a tested file is 10 000 000 bytes" don't you understand?

That's 10 million bytes. The Orion RNG is tested with 2 million bytes.

You are the one who brings this up. You are the one who argues that the Orion RNG passed the DIEHARD test.

And now, suddenly, you don't understand what it's about?!?

:hb:

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Justin, what part of "The minimum length of a tested file is 10 000 000 bytes" don't you understand?

That is understood, but you are not understanding me. I am asking you for an official site that says that. An official DIEHARD site, for example, or some writing from the creator of the DIEHARD tests. You know, some official verification that that is indeed the case.

That's 10 million bytes. The Orion RNG is tested with 2 million bytes.

Will you contact the Orion people and let them know your findings?

You are the one who brings this up. You are the one who argues that the Orion RNG passed the DIEHARD test.

I don't argue anything. I am just repeating what is on the Orion webpage.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by jzs
That is understood, but you are not understanding me. I am asking you for an official site that says that. An official DIEHARD site, for example, or some writing from the creator of the DIEHARD tests. You know, some official verification that that is indeed the case.

Justin, you bring up the DIEHARD test as an argument that the ORION RNGs are reliable.

Now, you suddenly want to sow doubt about them?

:hb:

Originally posted by jzs
Will you contact the Orion people and let them know your findings?

Sure, no problem.

Originally posted by jzs
I don't argue anything. I am just repeating what is on the Orion webpage.

You argue that the RNGs are calibrated. They are not.

You argue that the RNGs produce numbers that pass the DIEHARD test for non-randomness. They do not pass this test.

You argue that calibration means that they pass these tests. It does not.

Justin, how do you think you are doing?

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Bumpety-bump.

Yeah... I'd say I already bumped it by posting to the thread before you did. Wouldn't you agree?

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Yeah... I'd say I already bumped it by posting to the thread before you did. Wouldn't you agree?

Look at the time stamp, Justin. We posted within the same minute. You simply pressed the button a few seconds before me.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Look at the time stamp, Justin. We posted within the same minute. You simply pressed the button a few seconds before me.

Glad you agree.

Donks

12th March 2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by jzs

That is understood, but you are not understanding me. I am asking you for an official site that says that. An official DIEHARD site, for example, or some writing from the creator of the DIEHARD tests. You know, some official verification that that is indeed the case.[/B]
Just so the discussion can move on, from the file "diehard.doc" that comes with the DIEHARD CD:

2. Providing Input Files For DIEHARD.
The executable file diehard.exe will prompt you to name the file you want to be tested and ask you to select any or all of the 15 tests. You must provide the binary file that DIEHARD expects---a file of 10 to 11 megabytes, that is, a file of at least 80 million bits. DIEHARD will do the best it can with shorter binary files, then give up on the test under way, give an END OF FILE message and go to the next test.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 02:00 PM

a file of 10 to 11 megabytes, that is, a file of at least 80 million bits

Thank you.

Justin,

Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Just so the discussion can move on, from the file "diehard.doc" that comes with the DIEHARD CD:

Cool, thanks Donks.

I've emailed someone in the GCP who might know more about the Orion.

"DIEHARD will do the best it can with shorter binary files"

might explain it, or there might be another explanation out there.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Cool, thanks Donks.

I've emailed someone in the GCP who might know more about the Orion.

"DIEHARD will do the best it can with shorter binary files"

might explain it, or there might be another explanation out there.

But to pass the test, you need 10 Mb, yes or no?

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no.

Claus

Please don't attempt to limit my response to a question.

The Orion page says it has passed the tests. A text file that comes with the DIEHARD doc says that

"DIEHARD will do the best it can with shorter binary files"

so the Orion could have indeed passed the DIEHARD tests with a shorter sequence.

As mentioned, the excerpt at the bottom of the Orion page could have been referring to a different test as well. We (none of us) really know the story. Why don't you email them and ask?

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Claus

Please don't attempt to limit my response to a question.

The Orion page says it has passed the tests. A text file that comes with the DIEHARD doc says that

"DIEHARD will do the best it can with shorter binary files"

so the Orion could have indeed passed the DIEHARD tests with a shorter sequence.

The DIEHARD document is crystal clear:

You must provide the binary file that DIEHARD expects---a file of 10 to 11 megabytes, that is, a file of at least 80 million bits.

This is also supported by the quote from the website I linked to.

Originally posted by jzs
As mentioned, the excerpt at the bottom of the Orion page could have been referring to a different test as well. We (none of us) really know the story. Why don't you email them and ask?

You are the one who claims that the Orion RNGs passed the DIEHARD test. You do your own homework, buddy.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You are the one who claims that the Orion RNGs passed the DIEHARD test. You do your own homework, buddy.

I guess you don't really care to inquire, then.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by jzs
I guess you don't really care to inquire, then.

You are the one with the claims, Justin.

Until you get back with some evidence, let's sum up again:

You argued that the RNGs are calibrated. They are not.

You argued that the RNGs produce numbers that pass the DIEHARD test for non-randomness. They do not pass this test.

You argued that calibration means that they pass these tests. It does not.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are the one with the claims, Justin.

You're a little confused here. I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying what the Orion page has on it.

You argued that the RNGs are calibrated. They are not.

If they pass the tests, they certainly are.

You argued that the RNGs produce numbers that pass the DIEHARD test for non-randomness. They do not pass this test.

Ahh, now we see a claim by you. Where is your actual evidence? Can you produce the output file? Have you emailed the Orion people to have them explain? NO!?? Why not? You'd have to do some of these, it seems, to be able to claim that "They do not pass this test". For example, they could have had a typo on their webpage, been talking about a different test(s), you could have misunderstood (impossible as that may seem!), or any number of possible explanations.

You argued that calibration means
that they pass these tests. It does not.

Yes, in RNG-land, to the best of my knowledge, it does.

CFLarsen

12th March 2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by jzs
You're a little confused here. I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying what the Orion page has on it.

You are using the Orion page to claim that the RNGs are calibrated.

You are using the RNGs to claim that something is happening in GCP.

You are the one who is confused, Justin.

Originally posted by jzs
If they pass the tests, they certainly are.

They don't pass the tests, Justin. And they are not calibrated, because calibration does not mean that they pass a test. You are wrong on this.

Originally posted by jzs
Ahh, now we see a claim by you. Where is your actual evidence? Can you produce the output file? Have you emailed the Orion people to have them explain? NO!?? Why not? You'd have to do some of these, it seems, to be able to claim that "They do not pass this test". For example, they could have had a typo on their webpage, been talking about a different test(s), you could have misunderstood (impossible as that may seem!), or any number of possible explanations.

We have two separate sources that clearly states that there must be 10 MB. Orion only uses 2 Mb. You admit that they do, Justin.

Ergo, the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test.

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, in RNG-land, to the best of my knowledge, it does.

:hb:

T'ai Chi

12th March 2005, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are using the Orion page to claim that the RNGs are calibrated.

Then you are confused. That is not me making a claim then. It is them. I am just repeating what is on their page. I didn't make the claim.

You are using the RNGs to claim that something is happening in GCP.

Statistical significance, yes. Anything other "something" that you believe I am speaking about is your invention.

They don't pass the tests, Justin.

Got the actual test resuts to make such a claim? I'm all for you actually showing them to me, instead of asking me to take your words on faith.

Show me where "they" (ie. the RNG's used in the GCP, that is, the Orion, PEAR, and MicroREG) don't pass the DIEHARD tests.

We have two separate sources that clearly states that there must be 10 MB. Orion only uses 2 Mb. You admit that they do, Justin.

Claus, READ what the webpage actually says. INQUIRE about what it says. At the top of the page, it says the RNG passed the DIEHARD tests. OK. Further down the page, it talks about another test and using 2Mb. Here, however, it does not specifically mention that this was again the DIEHARD tests. You assume that. Moreover, without actually inquiring, you have no idea if there was a typo, if they were talking about another test or the DIEHARD tests here, or if you misunderstood something.

But don't let that stop your 'skeptical inquiry'..

CFLarsen

13th March 2005, 01:13 AM

Justin,

Look, if you can't present a coherent argument on your own, then don't. But please don't expect me to do it for you, complete with sources, evidence and facts. You have to do that yourself.

If you can't do that, then don't enter debates at all. You lose one debate after another, Justin. You are simply not up to this.

You are free to dismiss the facts people here have unearthed about the Orion RNG. The Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test, no matter how much you try to shift the burden of evidence onto others.

You are also free to continue to claim that the RNGs are calibrated. Each time you refer to GCP for whatever clouded reasons you may or may not have (it seems very hard for you to come out and state clearly what you mean about anything - do you have problems with the notion of being held accountable for your actions?), you immediately lose the argument.

Yet another one.

T'ai Chi

13th March 2005, 05:48 AM

Claus,

Look, you just avoided the issues again.

1) you claimed the RNGs don't pass the tests.
a) show us the test resuts
b) for each RNG (Orion, MicroREG, and PEAR)
c) show us a statement from the makers

Choose one or more, just don't expect anyone to believe you without actual evidence.

But please don't expect me to do it for you, complete with sources, evidence and facts. You have to do that yourself.

You made a claim, you have the burden. You are not magically immune because you label yourself a Skeptic.

You are also free to continue to claim that the RNGs are calibrated.

All calibrations means is that they passed a RNG test. If you continue to claim they aren't, then you are basically just incorrect.

(it seems very hard for you to come out and state clearly what you mean about anything

You'll have to be more specific than that, Claus. I can't help it if you have issues with me saying there is statistical significance in the GCP. If you want me to say there is a global concsciousness field affecting everything, etc., you will be disappointed.

CFLarsen

13th March 2005, 06:03 AM

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/sleep.gif

T'ai Chi

13th March 2005, 06:29 AM

More of the same evasions.

Claus,

1) you claimed the RNGs don't pass the tests.

a) show us the test resuts
b) for each RNG (Orion, MicroREG, and PEAR)
c) show us a statement from the makers

Choose one or more, just don't expect anyone to believe you without actual evidence.

You made a claim, you have the burden. You are not magically immune because you label yourself a Skeptic.

Are you now claiming that you didn't make the claim??

T'ai Chi

14th March 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by jzs

Claus, READ what the webpage actually says. INQUIRE about what it says. At the top of the page, it says the RNG passed the DIEHARD tests. OK. Further down the page, it talks about another test and using 2Mb. Here, however, it does not specifically mention that this was again the DIEHARD tests. You assume that. Moreover, without actually inquiring, you have no idea if there was a typo, if they were talking about another test or the DIEHARD tests here, or if you misunderstood something.

But don't let that stop your 'skeptical inquiry'.. [/B]

So, I got an email back from the contact on the Orion page.

Basically, Claus did jump to a conclusion without inquiry, in exactly the manner I suggested above. I should apply for the million. :)

I am awaiting approval to post the full email contents.

T'ai Chi

14th March 2005, 11:09 AM

Here is is. Start from the bottom of the post and work up. I emailed the email address on http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html

----

And then I emailed him the specific thread (this one) where his additional information would be posted.

-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:06:49 +0100
Subject: RE: FW: Orion RNG and DIEHARD test

Of course you may.
Which forum is this?

kind regards, Michiel Klonhammer

-----Original Message-----
Sent: maandag 14 maart 2005 17:03
Subject: Re: FW: Orion RNG and DIEHARD test

Hi again,

Additionally, could I have your permission to post the full contents of your email on an internet bulletin board where a discussion on RNG's is taking place?

Sincerely,

Justin

-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:46:15 +0100
Subject: FW: Orion RNG and DIEHARD test

Dear Sir,
The design of the RNG has been tested according to the DIEHARD test. But EACH RNG is actually tested according tot the 8192 x 8 bit samples test. This is to ensure that each RNG is in perfect working order. It is not necessary to test eacht shipped RNG with the diehard test.

kind regards, Michiel Klonhammer

-----Original Message-----
Sent: zaterdag 12 maart 2005 22:16
Subject: Orion RNG and DIEHARD test

Hello,

I have a question I was hoping I could get some help with.

On http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html

it says that

"The Random Number Generator parallel port dongle(Mac/DOS/Win) is the first true RNG to pass Marsaglia's famous DIEHARD randomness test."

and

"Each RNG passes a 256 run random ness test before being shipped. Each run consists of 8192 8-bit samples."

I've heard, but don't know for sure, that the DIEHARD tests require 10,000,000 bytes (I can't confirm that from any official DIEHARD source however). The issue that is confusing me, is that the above info from the Orion page only yields 256*8192 = 2,097,152 bytes, which wouldn't be adequate for testing.

Any info is appreciated,
Sincerely,

Justin Smith

CFLarsen

14th March 2005, 11:42 AM

The design of the RNG has been tested according to the DIEHARD test. But EACH RNG is actually tested according tot the 8192 x 8 bit samples test. This is to ensure that each RNG is in perfect working order. It is not necessary to test eacht shipped RNG with the diehard test.

So, we cannot say that the Orion RNG that is sold has passed the DIEHARD test.

Reason?

"ORION's Random Number Generator consists of two independent analogue Zener diode based noise sources."

How can they know that the Zener diodes produce the same noise?

Fact:

They can't.

Of course, the issue of (non)calibration still stands.

T'ai Chi

14th March 2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, we cannot say that the Orion RNG that is sold has passed the DIEHARD test.Reason? How can they know that the Zener diodes produce the same noise?Fact:They can't.Of course, the issue of (non)calibration still stands.

I guess you'd have to email them for your further very specific inquiries. As far as your "Fact", you'd have to inquire further to establish that. But don't let the facts stop you. At leas GCP makes their data available for all though..

Just to remind you of how you jumped to conclusions earlier

Claus, READ what the webpage actually says. INQUIRE about what it says. At the top of the page, it says the RNG passed the DIEHARD tests. OK. Further down the page, it talks about another test and using 2Mb. Here, however, it does not specifically mention that this was again the DIEHARD tests. You assume that. Moreover, without actually inquiring, you have no idea if there was a typo, if they were talking about another test or the DIEHARD tests here, or if you misunderstood something.

Carn

15th March 2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by jzs
At leas GCP makes their data available for all though..
[/B]

Could you help me, i didn't find on their webpage, where they make all their data avaible in the same way as the present the data of their famous examples, e.g. the 9/11 curves?

As far as i found, they only make the data avaible, where they think they found something interesting.

Thanks

Carn

T'ai Chi

15th March 2005, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Carn
Could you help me, i didn't find on their webpage, where they make all their data avaible in the same way as the present the data of their famous examples, e.g. the 9/11 curves?

As far as i found, they only make the data avaible, where they think they found something interesting.

Thanks

Carn

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html

CFLarsen

15th March 2005, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by jzs
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html

Do you think that the data for Dec 26th, 2004, supports the idea that a global consciousness exists?

Carn

15th March 2005, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by jzs
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html

Sorry, i was not specific enough, I was looking for curves like the 1st, 2nd and 6th on http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html , but just for an ordinary day, e.g. 3.1.2005.

The entries in their calendar archieve :

http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2005/summary-2005-01-03.html

http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2001/summary-2001-09-11.html

do not show them and the raw data looks rather similar.

Carn

T'ai Chi

15th March 2005, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Carn
Sorry, i was not specific enough, I was looking for curves like the 1st, 2nd and 6th on http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html , but just for an ordinary day, e.g. 3.1.2005.

The entries in their calendar archieve :

http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2005/summary-2005-01-03.html

http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2001/summary-2001-09-11.html

do not show them and the raw data looks rather similar.

Carn

The page http://www.fourmilab.ch/eggtools/eggshell/ has some C++ code that is available to download for various programs to do the analysis on the data files you download. It sounds to me like the "analysis" one is the one you are after.

T'ai Chi

15th March 2005, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you think that the data for Dec 26th, 2004, supports the idea that a global consciousness exists?

Claus. I don't speak in terms of "global consciousness". I don't even know what that term means. I'd rephrase your question to asking if the data supports RNG output for that day being significantly beyond chance expectation.

A p-value of ~.39 is not evidence of such a deviation.

Here is their page on it:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/earthquake.tsunami.html

T'ai Chi

15th March 2005, 08:40 PM

As long as we're asking each other questions, here's one for you.

This is a graph of RNG output with the theoretical RNG expectation superimposed. Basically a 'coin' is being flipped 200 times, and the number of heads is being kept track of, and this is done many times.

Claus, would you say that the RNG is performing as expected? Yes or No?

T'ai Chi

15th March 2005, 09:18 PM

Claus,

Why did you attempt to pressure me with your demand of

"Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no."

when, in fact, when you asked that you did not know if there was an explanation (there was, as posted) for why they said the Orion passed the DIEHARD test and then the only wrote about using ~2million bytes farther down on the page?

Why, now, do you move the goalposts by talking about Zener diodes producing equal noise (which is moot since the RNGs pass the tests)?

Why do you expect others to take you seriously when you preach you version of skepticism when you violate its main tenets?

CFLarsen

16th March 2005, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Claus. I don't speak in terms of "global consciousness". I don't even know what that term means. I'd rephrase your question to asking if the data supports RNG output for that day being significantly beyond chance expectation.

A p-value of ~.39 is not evidence of such a deviation.

Here is their page on it:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/earthquake.tsunami.html

Call it what you like.

Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation?

Would December 26 2003?

Would February 2003?

CFLarsen

16th March 2005, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by jzs
This is a graph of RNG output with the theoretical RNG expectation superimposed. Basically a 'coin' is being flipped 200 times, and the number of heads is being kept track of, and this is done many times.

Claus, would you say that the RNG is performing as expected? Yes or No?

How "many" times is this done? We need to know that, before we can say anything about performing "as expected".

I really hope you can see the inherent irony in expecting an RNG to perform according to a Bell curve, when you at the same time expect it not to....

CFLarsen

16th March 2005, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Why, now, do you move the goalposts by talking about Zener diodes producing equal noise (which is moot since the RNGs pass the tests)?

It is absolutely not moot: The diodes are the data source. If the data source is not tested, then the RNG can't be said to pass any test.

If the zener voltage changes even fractionally from RNG to RNG, what will this mean to the output in terms of randomness?
Is the tolerance of voltage specified, and is it the same for each diode?
Does Orion use the same voltage diodes?

Questions for you to ponder.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Call it what you like.

Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation?

Would December 26 2003?

Would February 2003?

You'll haev to look at their results page and see if there was a formal prediction for that day, etc., if you are itnerested in findining out.

I'm obviously not going to do your work and keep listing and interpreting p-values for you, etc.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I really hope you can see the inherent irony in expecting an RNG to perform according to a Bell curve, when you at the same time expect it not to....

It shows the RNG overall performs as expected, Claus.

Think: 'calibrated'.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is absolutely not moot:

Yes, it is. The RNG passes the test.

The diodes are the data source. If the data source is not tested, then the RNG can't be said to pass any test.

The RNG output it tested, Claus. The RNG does pass the tests, Claus.

Claus

Claus,

Why did you attempt to pressure me with your demand of

"Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no."

when, in fact, when you asked that you did not know if there was an explanation (there was, as posted) for why they said the Orion passed the DIEHARD test and then the only wrote about using ~2million bytes farther down on the page?

HELLO?

CFLarsen

16th March 2005, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by jzs
It shows the RNG overall performs as expected, Claus.

Think: 'calibrated'.

How "many" times was the coin flipped? We need to know that, before we can say anything about performing "as expected".

Is it one time? Two times? 20 times? Over how long a period?

Hey, if you don't know, just say so.

CFLarsen

16th March 2005, 04:31 AM

If the zener voltage changes even fractionally from RNG to RNG, what will this mean to the output in terms of randomness?
Is the tolerance of voltage specified, and is it the same for each diode?
Does Orion use the same voltage diodes?

Still pondering those questions? It's OK, take your time.

CFLarsen

16th March 2005, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by jzs
You'll haev to look at their results page and see if there was a formal prediction for that day, etc., if you are itnerested in findining out.

I'm obviously not going to do your work and keep listing and interpreting p-values for you, etc.

You never do any work, not even your own.

Here are the events and the results:

Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation? Yes, terrorist Attacks in Spain.

Following precedents from other terrorist attacks, I set the period from 07:00 to 12:00 as the formal prediction (6 to 11 GMT), to include some time before the first explosion and several hours of the aftermath. The trend over this period is extreme -- but it is a negative slope, opposite to the standard prediction.
Source (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/madrid.terror.html)

The answer: No.

Would December 26 2003? Yes, the Bam Earthquake.

The GCP data show no trend focused on the time of the quake or the main aftershock, though there is a strong increment beginning about three hours after the main tremblor.
Source (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/iranquake.html)

The answer: No.

Would February 2003? Yes, the Columbia Disaster.

The formal prediction period was set from 08:00 to noon, to include an hour of precursor time and three hours following the explosion for the news to spread.
...
First, the formal analysis. It does not show a significant departure from expectation.
Source (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/columbia.html)

The answer: No.

Do you still think that there is "something" going on, Justin? If you do, do you think it is tied to global events such as these?

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You never do any work, not even your own.

Here are the events and the results:

Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation? Yes, terrorist Attacks in Spain.

The answer: No.

Would December 26 2003? Yes, the Bam Earthquake.

The answer: No.

Would February 2003? Yes, the Columbia Disaster.

The answer: No.

Do you still think that there is "something" going on, Justin? If you do, do you think it is tied to global events such as these?

Well there are many single events that don't show statistical significance. You seem to think that the issue can be summed up by a few events, which is rather an incorrect view.

The overall p-value from the database of formal hypotheses is very significant.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If the zener voltage changes even fractionally from RNG to RNG, what will this mean to the output in terms of randomness? Is the tolerance of voltage specified, and is it the same for each diode? Does Orion use the same voltage diodes? Still pondering those questions? It's OK, take your time.

Your first issue is silly, because if, as you are suggesting, RNG output varied dramatically if voltage changed, we'd expect ALL RNG's to be behaving terribly. But they don't, Claus.

Claus

Why did you attempt to pressure me with your demand of

"Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no."

when, in fact, when you asked that you did not know if there was an explanation (there was, as posted) for why they said the Orion passed the DIEHARD test and then the only wrote about using ~2million bytes farther down on the page?

HELLO? It is ok... take your time.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Call it what you like.

Well, that sums up your approach.

You assume global consciousness exists, but only for the purpose of debunking.

I take a cautious and scientific view by just looking at the RNG output, and get slammed for it.

Oh well.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 05:07 PM

see next post

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 06:23 PM

Let's do this.

10000 times.

Here is my R script
x<-rbinom(10000,200,.5)
hist(x,xlab="# of heads")
c(mean(x),sd(x))

the mean is 99.909100. The standard deviation is 7.080795.

(histogram attached)

Now, are you going to proceed to ask me what happens if a fly lands on the computer while it generating the numbers, or if one resistor has more paint on it than the others?

Just focus on the actual pertinant issue, please.

CLAUS, is the RNG performing statistically different from what is expected?

rwguinn

16th March 2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Let's do this.

10000 times.

Here is my R script
x<-rbinom(10000,200,.5)
hist(x,xlab="# of heads")
c(mean(x),sd(x))

the mean is 99.909100. The standard deviation is 7.080795.

(histogram attached)

Now, are you going to proceed to ask me what happens if a fly lands on the computer while it generating the numbers, or if one resistor has more paint on it than the others?

Just focus on the actual pertinant issue, please.

CLAUS, is the RNG performing statistically different from what is expected?

you are still ignoring the basic question...
Just how in He!! do you calibrate an instrument while it is immersed in the medium and event it is supposed to be calibrated to (rule 8) measure.
All these side shows mean absolutely nothing if the basic question is unanswered.
period. end of science. back to woo.