Global Consciousness Project [Archive]

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.

T'ai Chi

16th March 2005, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by rwguinn
you are still ignoring the basic question...

And you are still ignoring my response to your non-issue.

I'm not theorizing about what a hypothetical 'global conscious' can or cannot do. We, you included, don't know if such a beast even exists. I'm asking an empirical question, investigating if the RNGs normally produce results that are not statistically different from what we expect.

end of science. back to woo.

So you won't comment on the actual data either?

T'ai Chi

17th March 2005, 05:16 PM

Bump for Claus.

Zep

17th March 2005, 05:51 PM

From WAY BACK then!!!

Originally posted by jzs
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" [global conscience] but you. They look at the RNG output when certain events occur.Justin, I'm trying to CLARIFY for you, not confuse. And if you don't seem to be able to understand something THIS simple, well...

Look - "global conscience" is what these EGGs are supposed to be measuring - that's what this ridiculous exercise is all about. Now, the way these RNGs are SUPPOSED to pick up "global conscience" is when something about it CHANGES such that it causes the RNG to change it's statistical significance, and thus provide a "measure" GC. Do you agree that is what is being run here? If yes, we proceed.

Originally posted by jzs
Originally posted by Zep
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. Your response clearly shows you are having trouble with English comprehension. Or staying on focus. My statement (a) was my acceptance that the DIEHARD tests were not likely to be the cause of the problems. In saying you DON'T agree, you now contend that the DIEHARD tests ARE bunkum, flatly contradicting some pages of your own posts above.

What can I say, Justin... Don't point that gun at your feet again, OK?

T'ai Chi

17th March 2005, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Look - "global conscience"

consciousness... not conscience, Zep.

is what these EGGs are supposed to be measuring - that's what this ridiculous exercise is all about

Please concentrate on what I am saying, Zep. I am interested in looking at the RNG output, not in pondering the assumed qualities of hypothetical global consciousness. I will not assume such things even for debunking purposes.

Your response clearly shows you are having trouble with English comprehension.

I got A's in those classes when I was in school, so nope, that can't be it.

My statement (a) was my acceptance that the DIEHARD tests were not likely to be the cause of the problems. In saying you DON'T agree, you now contend that the DIEHARD tests ARE bunkum, flatly contradicting some pages of your own posts above.

My comments were such that if someone thought a), that the DIEHARD tests were bunk, I disagree with them, because the DIEHARD tests are quite good. I'll remind you that the first part of your a) was

a) The DIEHARD tests are NOT a good test of statistical randomness.

and that is the part I disagree with.

What can I say, Justin... Don't point that gun at your feet again, OK?

Aren't you curious what Claus's answer will be regarding if the RNG is performing statistically different from what is expected? Will he commit to any analysis whatsoever?

What do you think of the graph I made, Zep?

Zep

18th March 2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by jzs
consciousness... not conscience, Zep.Yeah, whatever. When it is proven to exist, I'll start to spell it right.

Originally posted by jzs
Please concentrate on what I am saying, Zep. I am interested in looking at the RNG output, not in pondering the assumed qualities of hypothetical global consciousness. I will not assume such things even for debunking purposes.Fine. Then do you agree that to calibrate ANY instrument so that you can later determine if there's been any change in its readings under experimental conditions, you need to NOT have those conditions present while calibrating it? Yes?
Originally posted by jzs
I got A's in those classes when I was in school, so nope, that can't be it.That depends on your school, I suppose... ;)
Originally posted by jzs
My comments were such that if someone thought a), that the DIEHARD tests were bunk, I disagree with them, because the DIEHARD tests are quite good. I'll remind you that the first part of your a) was "a) The DIEHARD tests are NOT a good test of statistical randomness." and that is the part I disagree with.
Ah, isn't selective quoting a WONDERFUL thing, Justin? Pity you do it so openly though, or you would have fooled us all. My FULL line was: "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." So now you are agreeing with my statement??? Please make up your mind, OK...
Originally posted by jzs
Aren't you curious what Claus's answer will be regarding if the RNG is performing statistically different from what is expected? Will he commit to any analysis whatsoever?

What do you think of the graph I made?Nope, I'm not curious at all. I'm waiting for YOU to come to your senses and realise you are making a goof of yourself here. The again, you MAY be the sort of idjit pilot who sets his altimeter to zero at 10,000 feet in the air and then claims to be "on the ground".

And it's a nice graph - it's got numbers and lines and everything! So what?

CFLarsen

18th March 2005, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by rwguinn
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.

Precisely.

T'ai Chi

18th March 2005, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Zep

Then do you agree that to calibrate ANY instrument so that you can later determine if there's been any change in its readings under experimental conditions, you need to NOT have those conditions present while calibrating it? Yes?

But in RNG-land, calibrate just means it passes those tests. Their RNG's pass those tests.

My FULL line was: "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."

Yes, and you were informed that I disagreed with the first part of it.

And it's a nice graph - it's got numbers and lines and everything! So what?

So will you avoid adressing the pertinant issue here? Is the RNG that produced it producing it as we'd expect, or is it all out of wack?

T'ai Chi

18th March 2005, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Precisely.

Claus, you said if I presented a graph you'd need to know how many times it was done before commenting.

I presented a graph that I made by doing it 10000 times.

Where's your comment?

The mean is 99.909100. The standard deviation is 7.080795.

Just focus on the actual pertinant issue, please. CLAUS, is the RNG performing statistically different from what is expected?

Zep

18th March 2005, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by jzs
But in RNG-land, calibrate just means it passes those tests. Their RNG's pass those tests.OK, *sighs* we will run with your silly notion, shall we?

Let's accept that these RNGs were calibrated "successfully" in "RNG-land". But then these RNGs were not JUST "in RNG-land". "RNG-land" is necessarily a subset, if you will, of Globalised Conciousnicity (or whatever...). And therefore the RNGs have been under the influence, such as it is, of GC and have been at all times, including when they are calibrated. They cannot escape it - it is not "turn-off-able" or capable of being shielded from, ever.

So in making your claim about "RNG-land", you are actually agreeing with Claus and I that the RNGs WERE affected by GC, even when they were being calibrated.

Whew - I'm glad we sorted THAT out! Now we are all back at square one and facing the right way.

Further, it is now clear, when they were being used in the experiment, there should have been NO variation in the conditions under which the RNGs would have been operated from when they were being calibrated. Same mode of operation, same sensing of data, same effect from GC operating. Do you agree with this, Justin?
Originally posted by jzs
Yes, and you were informed that I disagreed with the first part of it.Good. We agree that DIEHARD is a valid test of RNG calibration. One step forward for mankind, I'm sure.

And having agreed that the RNGs WERE being affected by GC while being calibrated (see your own assertion above), this leaves the only alternative as to why there were any "results" obtained during the PEAR experiment itself:Zep: 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 perfectly random fluctuations in the data.

Originally posted by jzs
So will you avoid adressing the pertinant issue here? Is the RNG that produced it producing it as we'd expect, or is it all out of wack? Please explain to us how the operating conditions for a real live data run of an RNG for PEAR was in any way different from the DIEHARD calibration run. Then we can talk more.

T'ai Chi

18th March 2005, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Let's accept that these RNGs were calibrated "successfully" in "RNG-land". But then these RNGs were not JUST "in RNG-land". "RNG-land" is necessarily a subset, if you will, of Globalised Conciousnicity (or whatever...).

Again, you assume Globalised Conciousnicity (or whatever...) exists, Zep, to make your criticism. You are making a HUGE leap here.

Further, it is now clear, when they were being used in the experiment, there should have been NO variation in the conditions under which the RNGs would have been operated from when they were being calibrated. Same mode of operation, same sensing of data, same effect from GC operating. Do you agree with this, Justin?

You still are assuming GC exists, Zep.

Zep

18th March 2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Again, you assume Globalised Conciousnicity (or whatever...) exists, Zep, to make your criticism. You are making a HUGE leap here.

You still are assuming GC exists, Zep. No, I'm not making that assumption, PEAR is. That is the whole point of them setting up all these EGGs in the first place - to measure GC. (Although how they manage to explain the effect of GC on RNGs is a matter of laughable speculation, but that's a subject for another discussion). I'm simply allowing for the purposes of argument that GC does exist with the properties they claim it does and that it will affect RNGs.

But, to humour you, let's suppose that GC does NOT exist. Therefore there is no influence by GC in the RNGs or anything else for that matter. And yet PEAR supposedly pulled "valid" data out of these devices. Oh dear. Two options then appear:

a) Some OTHER phenomenon affected the RNGs, perhaps something quite mundane, perhaps not. This would require further careful investigation.

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 perfectly random fluctuations in the data.

And we can go on from there, and as we do, the chances of option (b) being the best answer continue to increase.

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Zep
No, I'm not making that assumption, PEAR is.

In your criticisms, you certainly are. For example, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'.

That is not a skeptical approach, Zep.

Or, am I wrong and you have looked at the RNG output?

athon

19th March 2005, 06:29 AM

This would be a comedy if it weren't so tragic.

Let me see if I can have a shot at grafting together an understanding of this:

We have a random number generator (RNG). We'll assume that it will generate random numbers with complete randomness on the assumption it has passed a test designed to accomplish this. We'll trust the output of this machine for the purposes of this evaluation.

Right.

Said RNG runs for a determined amount of time. When analysed, there appears to be strings of data which are not considered 'random'.

Point 1: How do we know they are not 'random'. Is there a pattern? What is a random vs. non-random pattern? If I use an analogy of a coin flicked completely randomly, coming up heads and tails, a hundred heads in a row could still apply to being random. The curve of data which fits the nice 'bell curve' expectation is a mathematic ideal, not always the rule for practical randomness.

Not all patterns have meaning. In fact, most don't.

OK, so maybe you can show they are not 'random' strings (again, let's assume). What does this then show evidence of? Non-random indicates an influence, which is what?

Point 2: If these non-random strings are attributed to an influence that cannot be shielded, the evidence for that influence will be impossible to gather. It becomes purely speculative. This is where the confusion over calibration comes into it; the project fails to provide evidence in support of their claims in that there is no negative control demonstrating that 'non-randomness' does not occur at all when GC is shielded.

Now I've either muddied the waters completely or hopefully underlined the main sticking points.

Athon

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by athon

Said RNG runs for a determined amount of time. When analysed, there appears to be strings of data which are not considered 'random'.

When the output is looked at on the days there was a formal hypothesis made, the results are generally significant, the GCP site says.

Point 1: How do we know they are not 'random'. Is there a pattern? What is a random vs. non-random pattern? If I use an analogy of a coin flicked completely randomly, coming up heads and tails, a hundred heads in a row could still apply to being random. The curve of data which fits the nice 'bell curve' expectation is a mathematic ideal, not always the rule for practical randomness.

If you get those results (100 heads in a row), you'd start, I hope long before, to think the coin was not a fair coin, that is, that there is something going on. The probabiltiy of that is .5^100, which is darn tiny, and is strong evidence against the coin having probability(heads) = .5.

The probability, as of July 2004 of seeing the RNG output on days associated with the formal hypotheses is .000076, which is fairly tiny. If the RNG 'coin' was fair, we'd expect this probabiltiy to be larger than .05 from what I understand.

CFLarsen

19th March 2005, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by jzs
When the output is looked at on the days there was a formal hypothesis made, the results are generally significant, the GCP site says.

Wrong.

What GCP is doing is picking some events that could pass for "global consciousness", and make predictions for those days. However, they leave out some events: E.g. I see an analysis of Earth Day 2001 (which is claimed to show GC), but not any analysis of Earth Day 2002, 2003, or 2004.

That's plain dishonest.

Originally posted by jzs
If you get those results (100 heads in a row), you'd start, I hope long before, to think the coin was not a fair coin, that is, that there is something going on. The probabiltiy of that is .5^100, which is darn tiny, and is strong evidence against the coin having probability(heads) = .5.

The probability, as of July 2004 of seeing the RNG output on days associated with the formal hypotheses is .000076, which is fairly tiny. If the RNG 'coin' was fair, we'd expect this probabiltiy to be larger than .05 from what I understand.

The RNGs are not calibrated. The output is worthless.

athon

19th March 2005, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by jzs

When the output is looked at on the days there was a formal hypothesis made, the results are generally significant, the GCP site says.

Ok, fair enough. But here is the core of the problem; you have a large string of numbers, for simplicity we'll use the coin analogy, and your results over one week contain a thousand flips, resulting in either heads or tails.

From the results, selection has been based on a connection between auspicious days of the week, say monday and wednesday, when some allegedly 'non-random' strings came up. Say, a run of 50 heads. Overall, that same coin is not seen to be 'non-random', because it was 'calibrated', right?

So then on monday and wednesday, some world-significant events were found. And a connection made.

What we are saying is this; there is no way a negative control could be made. Are there non-random strings on all non-auspicious days?

Originally posted by jzs

If you get those results (100 heads in a row), you'd start, I hope long before, to think the coin was not a fair coin, that is, that there is something going on. The probabiltiy of that is .5^100, which is darn tiny, and is strong evidence against the coin having probability(heads) = .5.

The probability, as of July 2004 of seeing the RNG output on days associated with the formal hypotheses is .000076, which is fairly tiny. If the RNG 'coin' was fair, we'd expect this probabiltiy to be larger than .05 from what I understand.

How is the hypothesis determined? Again, over a large enough spread, the possibility of getting one hundred heads is reduced. I would be surprised over a massive number of flips to NOT see a large string. Hence, it is not really 'non-random'.

Confusion here can be negated by having a RNG shielded, so there is no external influence of any kind, and comparing to see if it remains consistently 'random' throughout.

You are not following a basic tenet of science. There is no, none, zip!, nada control here for comparison. Even if the coin is 'fair', you need to discount that a run of heads is not also a random run.

Think of it this way; any combination of one hundred coin flips is 'extremely unlikely' to happen. We pick a pattern (simply because of the assumption that said pattern cannot be non-random - itself erroneous, but I digress...), and ascertain that an influence had to occur to have that pattern manifest.

We cannot make that assumption unless there is something to compare it with.

Is that any clearer?

Athon

CFLarsen

19th March 2005, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by athon
You are not following a basic tenet of science.

Exactly. And that's what causes Justin so much trouble: Because the reason why he focuses on GCP is that, on the surface, it looks like science. Justin doesn't care about the carnival acts of psychics, healers or dowsers, he only wants to look at the men in white lab coats.

Who, unfortunately for him, do not do science.

69dodge

19th March 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by jzs
When the output is looked at on the days there was a formal hypothesis made, the results are generally significant, the GCP site says.I think they should also look at the output from the other days, when they didn't expect anything unusual to happen. The behavior of the RNG on all those days would be a reasonable baseline for comparison. I've looked at their site a bit, and I believe that, currently, they are using "significant" to mean "significantly different from the theoretical behavior of an ideal RNG" rather than "significantly different from the actual long-term behavior of the actual RNG being used."

If their RNG occasionally acts flaky on days when a formal hypothesis was made, but it also occasionally acts flaky on days when no formal hypothesis was made, then all they've shown is that they have an occasionally flaky RNG. They haven't shown that their RNG is at all affected by the global consciousness which they hypothesized to be present on certain days.

For example, from one of their pages (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/resamp.html):
[Even w]hen it is feasible to take data in a given environment before and after the designated experimental segments, some of the surrounding time periods may themselves be subject to the same influences as the active segments. (Indeed, even in laboratory experiments there is evidence that traditional "control" data may not be immune to anomalous effects of consciousness.)If your real data is similar to your control data, it may be that both have been anomalously affected by consciousness. It may also be that neither has been.

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 01:22 PM

Claus, you are running from my challenge to you. The graph I presented, is the RNG that produced it performing statistically different from what is expected? Yes or No?

You said you cannot answer until I provided the number of times. Now that I did, you still aren't answering it it seems! Are you going to move the goal posts?

Originally posted by CFLarsen

However, they leave out some events:

How do you suggest they choose events? Don't just complain, Claus, offer your suggestions for improvement.

Sound familiar?

E.g. I see an analysis of Earth Day 2001 (which is claimed to show GC), but not any analysis of Earth Day 2002, 2003, or 2004.

Please, Claus, show us their exact quote where, as you claim, they claimed that it shows GC. Their exact quote. Please. Or are you going to do a 'Kimpatsu' on me and tell me to find it to support your claim?

They analyzed 2001, 2000, and 1999 Earth Days for what it is worth. These must be the ones that were submitted to the formal hypothesis registry.

The RNGs are not calibrated. The output is worthless.

They RNGs pass the tests, therefore they are calibrated.

So if their data is "worthless" according to you, how can you possibly scientifically analyze their data? You just ignore it, brush it off as "worthless" without any scientific analysis. Feeel free to prove otherwise.

Zep

19th March 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by jzs

In your criticisms, you certainly are. For example, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'.

That is not a skeptical approach, Zep.

Or, am I wrong and you have looked at the RNG output? [/B] What a maroon troll you are, jzs.

We started out discussing PEAR's methodologies (or lack thereof), and all you can do is attribute their pitifully obvious shortcomings to me when I point them out to you step by tiny, painful step. And to make it worse for yourself, you then try to dodge and weave and ignore the obvious conclusions. And even when I go to the trouble of explaining the logical situation as I believe it to be (i.e. no GC), you STILL think I'm not being skeptical.

Here, jzs. Let me spell it out for you in simple words of less than four letters each:

YOUARE ASADGIT.

Zep

19th March 2005, 07:18 PM

Hey, wouldn't it be fun to have jzs on a PC helpdesk?

"Look, you stupid user! I'VE got a PC here just like yours and it's working fine. So yours must be too, OK? OK???"

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Zep
What a maroon troll you are, jzs.
YOUARE ASADGIT.

Your emotional response doesn't do much for me.

The fact is, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'. You assume, for the purposes of debunking, that GC exists. Therefore, in your mind, you are justified in dismissing all of the RNG data.

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Hey, wouldn't it be fun to have jzs on a PC helpdesk?

"Look, you stupid user! I'VE got a PC here just like yours and it's working fine. So yours must be too, OK? OK???"

Another emotional response from Zep. Anyone surprised?

Zep's approach: "If X exists, the data is bunk because X influences the data. Therefore, the data is not worth looking at, and I will never actually examine the data X produces."

Pragmatist

19th March 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Hey, wouldn't it be fun to have jzs on a PC helpdesk?

Ever heard the phrase, "be careful what you wish for"?

Transcript of PC Helpdesk Conversation. A caller calls into a PC help desk manned by jzs:

caller: Uh..,hi...,I just wanted to say my PC isn't working can you help me?
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: Huh? What claim? I just wanted to report that my PC wasn't working!
jzs: That is a claim. Do you have evidence to support it?
caller: What? Look, I just tested it and it wasn't working O.K.?
jzs: How did you test it?
caller: I switched it on and it passed the self-test but then it just stopped.
jzs: It passed the self-test therefore it's calibrated.
caller; Huh? Calibrated? I couldn't give a **** about whether it's calibrated, it's not working!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: Oh jeez...
jzs: Ad hom
caller: I don't care about your sexual preferences, what about my computer?
jzs: Ad hom
caller: Look, let's start again. My computer passes self-test but doesn't work otherwise, O.K.?
jzs: Your computer is calibrated. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: You want me to provide evidence that my computer doesn't work?
jzs: Yes.
caller: Well, gee, it's right here in front of me and it isn't working! Do you want me to prove the sun is shining?
jzs: Yes.
caller: "Yes" what? You really want me to prove the sun is shining?
jzs: Yes.
caller: Why?
jzs: Evasion noted.
caller: Oh for christ's sake just look out the window!
jzs: Irrelevant. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: (sarcastically) Which one? The one about the computer or the sun shining?
jzs: So you admit you made a claim. Both of them.
caller: Is there any point to this? This is a computer help line and you are supposed to be helping me!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support that claim Claus?
caller: Claus? Who's Claus? My name is Steve!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim Claus?
caller: My name isn't Claus!
jzs: Why won't you just admit it Claus?
caller: Look, please just help me with my PC, I've just faxed you my ID, my name is Steve Jones, O.K.
jzs: Irrelevant Claus. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: O.K. O.K. my name is Claus, happy now? Now will you just help me with my PC, please?
jzs: Thank you for admitting your error.
caller: Whatever. Now can we get back to the PC, it's not working, remember?
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim Claus?
caller: "^E*()^^Q"Â£^&^%&^$"%Â£$$$$"(())"__"!!!!!!
jzs: Ad hom
caller: Look, if I fax you the complete schematics of the PC, a detailed 200 page description of every single thing that has ever been done with it, the expert testimonies of 1000 computer engineers that it's not working, documentary evidence that it was run over by a truck etc., would you just possibly be prepared to accept that it's not friggin' working?
jzs: No. Irrelevant Claus.
caller: Sigh...O.K. Why do you think it is working?
jzs: Because it's calibrated.
caller: How does that prove it's working?
jzs: That is the definition of working, "calibrated" means it's working.
caller: You told me before that "calibrated" meant it passed the power on self-test.
jzs: Irrelevant Claus.
caller: Not very consistent are you?
jzs: Ad hom.
caller: O.K. I'm losing it, are you going to help me with my computer or not?
jzs: Yes Claus.
caller: Thank God for that! I'm glad you finally agree to help me!
jzs: Would you please show me where I said that Claus?
caller: You just said it!!!!! And why are you obsessed with Claus?
jzs: I'm not obsessed with Claus, Claus. And where did I say I would help you?
caller: Aaaarggghhh! I said, "are you going to help me with my computer or not" and you said, "Yes". O.K.?
jzs: Claus, you said, "are you going to help me with my computer or not" and I said, "Yes", meaning, "or not".
caller: Oh Christ! Why won't you help me?
jzs: Why should I?
caller: Because you are the PC help and support line, that's why!!!!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support that claim Claus?
caller: (strangled cry of desperation followed by click of phone hanging up)

And now for something completely different. A news flash, just in from CNN.

Camera pans to a scene outside an office building where police are bundling a giggling and twitching man in a straitjacket into a police car...

CNN Reporter: I'm reporting from the scene of a brutal slaying in Oregon. As you can see the police have the situation under control and have arrested the suspect. Details are still coming in but it appears that the suspect, one Steve Jones, broke into the offices of a PC supplier and gunned down one of their support personnel by firing 300 rounds into him at point blank range with a fully automatic rifle. People here are shocked, and the police say that it appears to be a motiveless killing, although they believe that the gunman is in fact clinically insane because he keeps giggling and twitching and insisting his name is "Claus". Police have stated that although the victim has not been formally identified, they believe him to be one Justin Smith. Little is known about Mr Smith so I'm going to try and catch one of his work colleagues...

Camera pans to a man who is giggling and twitching.

CNN Reporter: I believe you knew Mr Smith and worked with him for some time? You surely have some idea of the kind of person he was and the effect he had on people?
man: Yes.
CNN Reporter: And your name is?
man: Claus.
CNN Reporter: That's strange, the suspect insists his name is Claus too!
man: Everybody's name is Claus.
CNN Reporter: Mine isn't!
man: Do you have evidence to support your claim?
CNN Reporter: What? What claim? You claimed everybody's name is Claus!
man: Do you have evidence to support that claim?
......

:D

rwguinn

19th March 2005, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Your emotional response doesn't do much for me.

The fact is, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'. You assume, for the purposes of debunking, that GC exists. Therefore, in your mind, you are justified in dismissing all of the RNG data.
because the RNG data is bogus because either
1). The GC interfered with the calibration, due to lack of shielding, or
2) The data is meaningless due to random changes in the RNG
3) all of the above.
The trivial pursuit of the RNG output and whether it meets some particular standard is grasping at a straw because the entire protocol was flawed, and you don't want to give up.

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist

Transcript of PC Helpdesk Conversation. A caller calls into a PC help desk manned by jzs:

Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know.

Pragmatist

19th March 2005, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by jzs

Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know. [/B]

Do you have evidence to support that claim? :D

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by rwguinn
1). The GC interfered with the calibration, due to lack of shielding, or

With 1), like Zep and Claus, your debunking has blinded you. You assume the GC exists, which is silly; we don't know that such a thing does or not.

2) The data is meaningless due to random changes in the RNG

You must believe any all RNG data meaningless, rwguinn?

Donks

19th March 2005, 09:39 PM

I'm curious about one thing. If you grab a 10MB string of RNG data from one of the periods that supposedly show GC, would that pass the DIEHARD tests?

rwguinn

19th March 2005, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by jzs

With 1), like Zep and Claus, your debunking has blinded you. You assume the GC exists, which is silly; we don't know that such a thing does or not [/B] .

That is a really stupid statement.
nope- Don't believe it exists, but if it did, it would be affecting the RNG's, which makes any calibration meaningless, since you cannot shield from the effect you are attempting to measure.

You must believe any all RNG data meaningless, rwguinn? [/B]

Random Number generators may or may not generate truly random numbers, depending on whether GC exists or not. :D I truly doubt that there is such a thing as a true RNG

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Donks
I'm curious about one thing. If you grab a 10MB string of RNG data from one of the periods that supposedly show GC, would that pass the DIEHARD tests?

Try it and see Donks. The DIEHARD test is freely available, and so is the GCP data.

T'ai Chi

19th March 2005, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Do you have evidence to support that claim? :D

What claim?

Are you considering

"Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know."

a claim, Pragmatist?

Donks

19th March 2005, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Try it and see Donks. The DIEHARD test is freely available, and so is the GCP data.
I'll try later. I really don't feel like booting into linux right now, and even less like installing a compiler on windows.

Edit: I'm looking at the data. What exactly is it that an egg outputs? A number between 70 and 120?

69dodge

20th March 2005, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss?I think the following bit makes an important point.
Originally posted by Pragmatist
caller: Sigh...O.K. Why do you think it is working?
jzs: Because it's calibrated.
caller: How does that prove it's working?
jzs: That is the definition of working, "calibrated" means it's working.
caller: You told me before that "calibrated" meant it passed the power on self-test.If a computer fails the power-on self-test, we can conclude it's not working right. But if it passes the power-on self-test, it may still fail in ways that the power-on self-test wasn't designed to detect. More to the point, if it passes the power-on self-test today, it may still fail that test tomorrow. Such a failure is not evidence of anomalous effects of consciousness on computers; it's evidence of an intermittent computer problem.

69dodge

20th March 2005, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Donks
What exactly is it that an egg outputs? A number between 70 and 120?From http://noosphere.princeton.edu/story.html:The trial consists of 200 bits and its value is recorded by counting the 1's. We expect that this count will be about 100 because there is a 50/50 chance for a bit to be 1 or 0. [ ... ] The result for each trial at each egg is, in fact, a varying quantity which depends on chance fluctuations, but over a large number of such trials we see a close approximation to the normal distribution, or bell curve. Most of the values are near 100, tapering off to rare scores as far from the mean as 70 or 130.

Donks

20th March 2005, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by 69dodge
From http://noosphere.princeton.edu/story.html:
Thanks. In that case, that data is probably not the right data for the DIEHARD tests. Does anyone know if the raw egg data is available?

Zep

20th March 2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Your emotional response doesn't do much for me.
Oh. What will? Should I take my clothes off or something?? Leave my hat on?
Originally posted by jzs
The fact is, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'. You assume, for the purposes of debunking, that GC exists. Therefore, in your mind, you are justified in dismissing all of the RNG data. Would you seriously like me to point out your shabby little lies in this statement? Or shall I expect you to show us them yourself?

No, I guess I'll have to point out your shabby little lies myself.

The fact is, you won't even look at RNG outputAre you telepathic? If you think so, give it up - you suck at it big time. Making up "facts" is lying, Justin.

because you say, 'because the GC exists...I said "IF the GC exists...". Big difference, and another lie on your part, Justin.

the RNG output is worthlessI said it that it can't be relied on under THESE conditions for THIS purpose (i.e. measuring GC). Lie number three, Justin.

You assume, for the purposes of debunking, that GC exists.No, I ALLOW IT TO BE SO for the purposes of ARGUMENT. Lie number four, Justin.

Therefore, in your mind, you are justified in dismissing all of the RNG data.Dagnabbit! You got me there! And the more YOU read about how PEAR massage and select and massage and select and massage and select and massage and select and massage and select their data from these "calibrated" RNGs (see the website YOU referenced, it's all in there), the more YOU and everyone else sees what a money-soaked scandal the whole EGG thing is.

Zep

20th March 2005, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Donks
I'm looking at the data. What exactly is it that an egg outputs? A number between 70 and 120? Like 69dodge said, but then you need to: Forget some values as they are "most likely nulls" for various reasons, adjust selected values because one make of RNG produces consistently "wrong" values compared to the other makes, cut some data out because it doesn't fit within expected value ranges, leave out "silly" maxima and minima values, and massage it some more. THEN you can see the magical effect on 9/11! :)

Which means jzs's "calibration rant" is a pointless pile of possum's poo!

Donks

20th March 2005, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Like 69dodge said, but then you need to: Forget some values as they are "most likely nulls" for various reasons, adjust selected values because one make of RNG produces consistently "wrong" values compared to the other makes, cut some data out because it doesn't fit within expected value ranges, leave out "silly" maxima and minima values, and massage it some more. THEN you can see the magical effect on 9/11! :)

Which means jzs's "calibration rant" is a pointless pile of possum's poo!
In that case, too bad. I guess I can't check if the data passes DIEHARD or not.

Zep

20th March 2005, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Donks
In that case, too bad. I guess I can't check if the data passes DIEHARD or not. I'd suggest trying DIEHARD on the this data anyway. I have already downloaded it and looked at a few basic stats myself. If they are indeed raw data, they are quite boringly normal.

I don't think they are raw data though - there's no "nulls" (or at least values that seem to represent null data), which PEAR says is a very visible percentage of the raw data. So already they seem to have "cleansed" the numbers!

Donks

20th March 2005, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I'd suggest trying DIEHARD on the this data anyway. I have already downloaded it and looked at a few basic stats myself. If they are indeed raw data, they are quite boringly normal.

I don't think they are raw data though - there's no "nulls" (or at least values that seem to represent null data), which PEAR says is a very visible percentage of the raw data. So already they seem to have "cleansed" the numbers!
Erm, maybe I'm getting data form the wrong place...
Where do you get the raw data from? I mean the binary string that comes out of the RNGs, with no massaging or filtering.

Zep

20th March 2005, 05:30 AM

The same place! The one and only place PEAR make it available.

Please don't hesitate to analyse this data - I'd love to know what you find out! As I said, I've done only the most perfunctory analysis so far.

Donks

20th March 2005, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Zep
The same place! The one and only place PEAR make it available.

Please don't hesitate to analyse this data - I'd love to know what you find out! As I said, I've done only the most perfunctory analysis so far.
Erm, I'm looking at this page (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html), and the output doesn't seem like raw data to me. I must be missing something.

Zep

20th March 2005, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Erm, I'm looking at this page (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html), and the output doesn't seem like raw data to me. I must be missing something. That's the place. Yep, they seem to define "raw" as "thoroughly altered and scrubbed".

Donks

20th March 2005, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Zep
That's the place. Yep, they seem to define "raw" as "thoroughly altered and scrubbed".
Well, I could massage it some more and get some form that I could feed into DIEHARD, but I don't see how the result would apply to anything anymore :)

Pragmatist

20th March 2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by jzs
What claim?

Are you considering

"Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know."

a claim, Pragmatist?

Yes.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I'd suggest trying DIEHARD on the this data anyway. I have already downloaded it and looked at a few basic stats myself.

Feel free to show your work. Even though I apparently have "no grasp of basic mathematics", I think I'd like to see what you do with the data.

Donks

20th March 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Feel free to show your work. Even though I apparently have "no grasp of basic mathematics", I think I'd like to see what you do with the data.
Maybe you can help me with this, where can I find the raw data? I can't run it through DIEHARD if all I have is the number of 1s per 200 bits.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by rwguinn
.
nope- Don't believe it exists, but if it did, it would be affecting the RNG's, which makes any calibration meaningless, since you cannot shield from the effect you are attempting to measure.

"but if it did, it would be.." etc.

See? Your criticism relies on the hypothesis of it existing.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Maybe you can help me with this, where can I find the raw data? I can't run it through DIEHARD if all I have is the number of 1s per 200 bits.

You'd have to contact the GCP or Orion people I'd imagine. I'm not going to have access to anything that you don't have access to.

Donks

20th March 2005, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by jzs
You'd have to contact the GCP or Orion people I'd imagine. I'm not going to have access to anything that you don't have access to.
I mailed GCP. Let's see what they reply.

ETA: Well that was fast. No, they don't record the stream. I'd have to get an egg and get the data myself. Anyone has access to an egg and can record the bitstream?

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Donks

ETA: Well that was fast. No, they don't record the stream. I'd have to get an egg and get the data myself. Anyone has access to an egg and can record the bitstream?

Maybe try the Orion folk and see if they can help?
(http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html)

I know the RNG's are in general expensive, unfortunately, since they are fairly sophisticated hardware. :(

Donks

20th March 2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Maybe try the Orion folk and see if they can help?
(http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html)

I know the RNG's are in general expensive, unfortunately, since they are fairly sophisticated hardware. :(
Erm, I don't know how to write them an email asking them for a bitstream without begging the question "How about you buy one of our fine RNGs and do all the testing you want?"

Pragmatist

20th March 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Donks
Erm, I don't know how to write them an email asking them for a bitstream without begging the question "How about you buy one of our fine RNGs and do all the testing you want?"

Let's just see if I've got this straight. Justin is suggesting that you buy an RNG, run it, collect the data it generates and that will give you an exact copy of the original data obtained by GCP (and what the discussion is all about), and allow you to test the hypotheses generated in relation to it by GCP?

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Let's just see if I've got this straight. Justin is suggesting that you buy an RNG, run it, collect the data it generates and that will give you an exact copy of the original data obtained by GCP (and what the discussion is all about), and allow you to test the hypotheses generated in relation to it by GCP?

No Pragmatist. Where did I ever suggest the "exact copy" that you claimed?

I'm suggesting that if he wants to see data in the form of 0's and 1's, he contacts the people involved with the project and/or the RNG makers and sees what they have to say

Donks

20th March 2005, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by jzs
No Pragmatist. Where did I ever suggest the "exact copy" that you claimed?

I'm suggesting that if he wants to see data in the form of 0's and 1's, he contacts the people involved with the project and/or the RNG makers and sees what they have to say
Yeah, jzs didn't suggest I buy one.

In any case, I don't see how getting my own RNG would help. I'd prefer to test the actual bitstream that is being used to produce the GCP results. Since that apparently is not possible, then that's it.

Pragmatist

20th March 2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by jzs
No Pragmatist. Where did I ever suggest the "exact copy" that you claimed?

I was asking if that was what you were suggesting. If it wasn't, fine.

Originally posted by jzs
I'm suggesting that if he wants to see data in the form of 0's and 1's, he contacts the people involved with the project and/or the RNG makers and sees what they have to say

But as Donks has already pointed out - unless I misunderstood something - the GCP didn't keep the relevant data. So he's not going to get actual data. Since it is the hypothesis of GCP that the output of the RNG is anomalous under specific past, unique conditions, it doesn't help at all to look at the output of a similar RNG now, because that wouldn't clarify anything. The similar RNG may or may not be anomalous, but that wouldn't necessarily indicate in any way whether the original RNG was anomalous or not, would it? Therefore, your suggestion appears to be an exercise in futility - unless you meant something else. In which case please make yourself clearer.

Donks

20th March 2005, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
But as Donks has already pointed out - unless I misunderstood something - the GCP didn't keep the relevant data. So he's not going to get actual data. Since it is the hypothesis of GCP that the output of the RNG is anomalous under specific past, unique conditions, it doesn't help at all to look at the output of a similar RNG now, because that wouldn't clarify anything. The similar RNG may or may not be anomalous, but that wouldn't necessarily indicate in any way whether the original RNG was anomalous or not, would it? Therefore, your suggestion appears to be an exercise in futility - unless you meant something else. In which case please make yourself clearer.

Yeah, the email said that they "do not record the bitstream." And I agree with your view. My original intent was to see if the data, the part that shows anomalies according to their analysis, can pass the DIEHARD tests or not.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I was asking if that was what you were suggesting. If it wasn't, fine.

Yes, you were wrong.

Thanks.

CFLarsen

20th March 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, you were wrong.

Thanks.

How can Pragmatist be "wrong", if it was a question? There was no claim.

You are very confused on this whole "question/claim" thingie...

Pragmatist

20th March 2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Yeah, the email said that they "do not record the bitstream." And I agree with your view. My original intent was to see if the data, the part that shows anomalies according to their analysis, can pass the DIEHARD tests or not.

And that's what I thought you meant, thanks.

The issue here is real simple - and it appears obvious to all but Justin. But Justin appears to have trouble understanding real simple things...

The output of an RNG is either "random" or it isn't. If it isn't, it shouldn't rightly be called a "Random Number Generator".

Sampling the output of an RNG for a short period of time (even if it passes DIEHARD tests) does not establish whether the output is always "random" in perpetuity. Unless the output is continually sampled and recorded at all times, there is no baseline for comparison. It is meaningless to compare the actual output at some limited point in time with a generic ideal of "randomness" - because true randomness can be "random overall", without (apparently) being "random in particular" over a short period.

The hypothesis of GCP is that external events constitute "anomalous" output. But without the full record there is no way to establish whether they really are anomalous or not (compared to the rest of the bit stream - which is the only meaningful comparison possible). The fact that a small sample window may appear anomalous compared with some statistical ideal of "randomness", does not imply that the overall output was ever anything but random. If such a comparison (between a small data window and statistical ideal) was valid, then a run of say 10 heads in a thousand coin flips which gives overall 50/50 statistics would imply that the coin wasn't fair.

There is reason to suspect that the RNG's are not necessarily truly random over a long period anyway. That reason is because the manufacturer says so: http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html

2. Before using the random byte as read from the RS 232 port, apply a software routine that ensures that in 50% of the samples a logical '1' will be interpreted as '0' and of course also that in 50% of the samples a logical '0'will be interpreted as a '1'. This will ensure that no systematic first order deviation will arise even when the device does not function properly (of course you might get strong second order and variance effects). The easiest way to do this is to transform a '1' into a '0' and a '1' into a '0' on odd trials.

A more sophisticated and recommended way is to XOR the random byte with a pseudo random byte. In that case the resulting bytes will even behave properly for higher order bias effects.

To put that in context - the output may be guaranteed to be within certain parameters at the time of shipping, but there is no guarantee of long term stability in actual use - particularly not given that electronic components tend to change their parameters with age and use.

The RNG is supposed to be "shielded". Shielded against what exactly? No shielding is 100% effective for EM, let alone gamma radiation, cosmic rays, neutrinos etc. And what generates the "randomness" in the RNG? A Zener diode generating noise due to quantum effects - a quantum source that by definition has to be susceptible to just about all of the above. It makes little difference whether you use two Zeners or one or ten.

But the hypothesis of GCP is that they are not shielded against GC. And even the manufacturers believe that the "psi phenomenon" may be a problem:

3. In case of psi research: Always have a no-subject condition as part of the formal design. In the no subject condition each button-press is replaced by a random wait routine. As a rule of thumb run the no-subject condition about 10 times more often than the experimental subject condition.

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.

But of course, in the case of GCP, no, "no subject condition" is possible by definition. If the device is not shielded against GC then there is no control condition to compare with and the data is meaningless - and the device can never be shielded against all possible extraneous influences anyway. If the device is shielded against GC, then the "results" have nothing to do with GC, and in the context of GC, the data is meaningless. The only reasonable conclusion overall, regardless of whether GC exists or not is that the data is meaningless!

Pragmatist

20th March 2005, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How can Pragmatist be "wrong", if it was a question? There was no claim.

You are very confused on this whole "question/claim" thingie...

Indeed, he most certainly appears to be! :D

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist

The output of an RNG is either "random" or it isn't.

Well thats a tautology, I agree.

It is meaningless to compare the actual output at some limited point in time with a generic ideal of "randomness"

I'm asking if the RNG output is statistically different than what one would expect by chance. I'm not asking if the RNG is random.

The hypothesis of GCP is that external events constitute "anomalous" output. But without the full record there is no way to...

They make their data available.

There is reason to suspect that the RNG's are not necessarily truly random over a long period anyway. That reason is because the manufacturer says so: http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html

Show me their exact claim from that page that supports your claim that they say "RNG's are not necessarily truly random over a long period anyway".

To put that in context - the output may be guaranteed to be within certain parameters at the time of shipping, but there is no guarantee of long term stability in actual use

That's why you look at the data they produce, Claus Lite, to see if they are out of wack or not.

But of course, in the case of GCP, no, "no subject condition" is possible by definition.

What the GCP people do for a 'control' is compare the data on a day that is in the formal hypothesis registry to a neighboring day that is not in the formal hypothesis registry. For the day of the formal hypothesis there should be something going on. For the control day, nothing should be going on.

and the device can never be shielded against all possible extraneous influences anyway.

That is lame copout, even for you. Nothing in any field can ever be shielded against "all possible" influences. Therefore, one can always say 'it wasn't shielded against X!', thus attempting to debunk it. But one can say this about any thing in any area of study, so who cares.

The only reasonable conclusion overall, regardless of whether GC exists or not is that the data is meaningless!

Well, that might be the conclusion that you want to perpetuate, but it is certainly not the "only reasonable conclusion". How about examining the data? That seems reasonable.

So if there is no GC, you are saying that RNG data is still meaningless? Gee, try telling that to the statistical industries that thrive on using data generated from RNG and PRNGs.

Donks

20th March 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by jzs
They make their data available.

That's why you look at the data they produce, Claus Lite, to see if they are out of wack or not.

How about examining the data? That seems reasonable.

I tried. They do not record the raw data. They can't currently make it available. It can't currently be tested. And unless someone else kept a record of the eggs' raw data for Sept. 11, etc., it is no longer possible to confirm those results.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Donks
I tried. They do not record the raw data. They can't currently make it available.

Why would they need to keep recording the 0's and 1's? They already know the Orion, for example, has passed the DIEHARD. There is just no reason to.

They do make raw count data available, and I guess we should be thankful they make any data easily available (unlike JREF, for example) over the internet. I downloaded a very small chunk of one day's worht of data and it was over 10 megs!

You could buy a RNG, right? Maybe a team of skeptics could all pitch in?

Donks

20th March 2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Why would they need to keep recording the 0's and 1's? They already know the Orion, for example, has passed the DIEHARD. There is just no reason to.
Because that's the output from the RNGs, and that's what's supposedly being affected.

They do make raw count data available, and I guess we should be thankful they make any data easily available (unlike JREF, for example) over the internet. I downloaded a very small chunk of one day's worht of data and it was over 10 megs!
What does the JREF have to do with anything?
And yes, I suppose an RNG can produce quite a bit of data in a day.

You could buy a RNG, right? Maybe a team of skeptics could all pitch in?
On a student's salary? Ha! Either I buy one or I eat :)
In any case, it wouldn't matter. I wanted to check their results, and to do that I'd like to use the input they use, not my own.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Because that's the output from the RNGs, and that's what's supposedly being affected.

Well, from their page on RNG's

"The final output of the physical REG unit is a sequence of bytes presented to the computer's serial port, which are then formed by the acquisition software into a sequence of trials (sums of 200 bits), generated at 1 per second."

so there may not be a way to just get the 1's and 0's if the acquisition software is summing them automatically. I don't know.

On a student's salary? Ha! Either I buy one or I eat :)

Which is why I suggested getting several people to split the cost.

In any case, it wouldn't matter. I wanted to check their results, and to do that I'd like to use the input they use, not my own.

Using the same RNG would be suitable I'd imagine. Or are you suggesting you want to use the exact same RNGs taht the GCP people and volunteers are using? Like you want to borrow one of theirs?

Zep

20th March 2005, 02:53 PM

If you keep this up, Justin, you will become simply another Kumar on this forum. Really. You now have at least four people have told you the same thing about those RNGs in a number of different ways, and yet you want to persist in arguing for them. Plus we now know that the original source data, from which all these amazing PEAR claims are derived, is not available. So your whole line of argument now looks a lot like this...

http://juneaualaska.com/visit/Images/shipwreck.jpg

Donks

20th March 2005, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by jzs

Well, from their page on RNG's

"The final output of the physical REG unit is a sequence of bytes presented to the computer's serial port, which are then formed by the acquisition software into a sequence of trials (sums of 200 bits), generated at 1 per second."

so there may not be a way to just get the 1's and 0's if the acquisition software is summing them automatically. I don't know.
The software the Orion people offer doesn't seem to have this limitation. If GCP has it, it's because they programmed it that way.

Using the same RNG would be suitable I'd imagine. Or are you suggesting you want to use the exact same RNGs taht the GCP people and volunteers are using? Like you want to borrow one of theirs?
No, me having one of theirs accomplishes nothing. I'd like to use the data they used, pass it through DIEHARD. I don't care to test a different RNG. I want to see if DIEHARD detects an anomaly in the same period they detect an anomaly.

T'ai Chi

20th March 2005, 03:08 PM

That's great Zep, you figured out how to post images.

Anyway, we see that

1) people assume the GC exists, but only for the purpose of saying the data is worthless

2) no one has actually analyzed their data, because from 1) they say it is worthless

3) the maker of the Orion says it passed the DIEHARD test, but people will still claim the RNG has not passed it

4) Claud asked for the number of times it was done in a graph I posted (I couldn't find it exactly for that graph and told him so) so he could comment on my question. I graphed some GCP data and told him it was done 10,000 times. Still, no substantial comments from him. He avoids the main question entirely.

Are these skeptical approaches?

Zep

20th March 2005, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by jzs
That's great Zep, you figured out how to post images.

Anyway, we see that

1) people assume the GC exists, but only for the purpose of saying the data is worthless
WHICH IS A LIE.

2) no one has actually analyzed their data, because from 1) they say it is worthless
WHICH IS A LIE.

3) the maker of the Orion says it passed the DIEHARD test, but people will still claim the RNG has not passed it
WHICH IS A LIE.

4) Claud asked for the number of times it was done in a graph I posted (I couldn't find it exactly for that graph and told him so) so he could comment on my question. I graphed some GCP data and told him it was done 10,000 times. Still, no substantial comments from him. He avoids the main question entirely.
WHICH IS A LIE.

Are these skeptical approaches? Such an imagination you've got. Ever thought of writing for Sylvia Browne?

rwguinn

20th March 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by jzs

"but if it did, it would be.." etc.

See? Your criticism relies on the hypothesis of it existing. [/B]
AH-I see...
Ignorance is curable. Your condition, however....

Pragmatist

20th March 2005, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by jzs
I'm asking if the RNG output is statistically different than what one would expect by chance. I'm not asking if the RNG is random.

You know perfectly well what I meant. Assume "random" to mean "statistically what one would expect by chance". The RNG manufacturers and the GCP use the word "random" in exactly that sense.

Originally posted by jzs
They make their data available.

Apparently not. They only make a small pre-massaged, cherry-picked subset of their data available - there's a difference you know.

Originally posted by jzs
Show me their exact claim from that page that supports your claim that they say "RNG's are not necessarily truly random over a long period anyway".

I did. I'm afraid I am unable to help you with your reading comprehension problem though, sorry.

And here's a related quote from the GCP web site:

Of course these real-world electronic devices are not perfect theoretical random sources. They inevitably have minute but real residual internal correlations and component interactions, and there are occasional failures. For example, when the power supply is compromised, the internal power regulation may not be able to adequately compensate.

See also "Rotten Eggs"

Originally posted by jzs
That's why you look at the data they produce, Claus Lite, to see if they are out of wack or not.

Since you've now resorted to name calling, I guess you won't mind if I call you "L'ie Che'at" - it seems appropriate somehow, don't you think? :)

And believe it or not, I agree with you! You are absolutely right! All we need to do is look at the long term output of the actual RNG to see whether there are variations. So where is that data? Oh, I forgot, they discarded it...oops... :rolleyes:

For what it's worth, if I was expected to analyse such data I wouldn't just be running simple stats on it. I'd be running Fourier analyses on it to see if there were persistent periodic patterns, and autocorrelations across various windows as well as crosscorrelations with redundant generators (with different degrees of shielding) during the same time period - and in particular I'd be looking for aliasing across different windows. And I'd be doing similar analyses of the power line state and other measurable variables like the background radiation flux etc. And of course the DIEHARD as well (I don't know whether the DIEHARD tests include any of these analyses).

GCP mention that Fourier analyses can be done - but they don't say that they are done routinely. And I see no evidence that data from potential influence sources is acquired at all.

Originally posted by jzs
What the GCP people do for a 'control' is compare the data on a day that is in the formal hypothesis registry to a neighboring day that is not in the formal hypothesis registry. For the day of the formal hypothesis there should be something going on. For the control day, nothing should be going on.

Yeah, nothing should be going on. I guess they just "know" somehow what everyone on earth just happens to be doing every day. A lot of major events don't get reported. And where are the external influence measurements? Have they bothered to try correlating with solar activity for example? I note in their FAQ they simply claim their equipment is "shielded" and external factors don't count - yeah, right!

Originally posted by jzs
That is lame copout, even for you. Nothing in any field can ever be shielded against "all possible" influences. Therefore, one can always say 'it wasn't shielded against X!', thus attempting to debunk it. But one can say this about any thing in any area of study, so who cares.

Crap. You know perfectly well what I mean. I gave you examples. Power line conditions. Ambient radio activity. Solar EM and other astrophysical major EM sources. Atomic tests and EMP. Gamma and Cosmic Flux. Neutrino flux, things like that. And your argument is a total straw man in any event. Nearly everything can be potentially influenced, but it's a matter of degree since in this case they are essentially measuring quantum level activity it is vastly more susceptible to miniscule influences than the majority of experiments in most areas. And, here is the killer for your argument, if they had actually bothered to monitor a wide range of ambiental variables and record them along with the data then it would give a much higher basis for confidence in rejecting alternative correlations with external events other than "global consciousness". Why do they just write off external influences and assume "global consciousness" as the primary hypothesis? Are you seriously going to argue that is objectve science?

Where does the Orion egg get its power from BTW? It takes power from the RS232 port of the computer it's attached to. Any halfway decent engineer will tell you that the RS232 lines vary enormously from computer to computer - I forget the allowable voltage variation but it's something of the order of +/- 3 volts to 18 volts! And anyone who thinks that a PC power supply (which feeds those lines) is somehow perfectly stable and clean would have to be a complete moron. And no, there is no reasonable way of regulating and filtering that particular source to make it extremely clean, there will always be residual noise that feeds all the way down to the Zener under test. But that noise isn't just "random" noise. It's often synced to things like the circuit clocks, switching transients etc. The fact that they can't even be bothered to design a proper, stable power source for the eggs says a lot about the whole methodology and integrity of the project.

Originally posted by jzs
Well, that might be the conclusion that you want to perpetuate, but it is certainly not the "only reasonable conclusion". How about examining the data? That seems reasonable.

I repeat. What data? The pre-selected, filtered, massaged data they actually kept is useless. Doubly so in the absence of correlate data for possible influence sources.

Originally posted by jzs
So if there is no GC, you are saying that RNG data is still meaningless? Gee, try telling that to the statistical industries that thrive on using data generated from RNG and PRNGs.

Some would consider it a sad indictment of society that a "statistical industry" could even exist! :D And in any event it's a straw man. The data is useless for the purposes of determining whether there is "global consciousness" or not. There is insufficient data to allow proper examination of key alternate correlates, as I have repeatedly said. In short, the experiment is badly designed. The data is useless for the purpose for which it was allegedly obtained.

If you really, honestly believe that there is some useful data and significance in this project then feel free to actually address the issues. I suspect you won't - as usual.

Zep

20th March 2005, 11:46 PM

Greate work, Prag! I think you summed it all very nicely.

Now...

Stand by for an influx of mountains of straw from jzs...

CFLarsen

20th March 2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Stand by for an influx of mountains of straw from jzs...

But will it be random??

Zep

21st March 2005, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But will it be random?? Well, it will probably be all over the place. Does that count?

CFLarsen

21st March 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Well, it will probably be all over the place. Does that count?

Only if it sounds scientific. Doesn't necessarily have to be, though...

Zep

21st March 2005, 01:07 AM

Sounds scientific to who...? :D

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Greate work, Prag! I think you summed it all very nicely.

Now...

Stand by for an influx of mountains of straw from jzs...

Apparently not... Maybe because I used the awful words, "address the issues" - which seems to have the same effect on Justin as garlic on vampires...! :D

Here's something interesting though. I took a brief look at some geophysical databases to see if there was anything interesting there in relation to the GCP data. I've only looked at one data set to start with, I chose the GCP data for the Tsunami of December 26 2004 and just compared one of the graphs with things like proton flux, solar winds, x-ray background etc. The most interesting comparison was between the GCP and the geomagnetic k index (which is calculated every 3 hours from a range of geomagnetic measurements around the world).

The GCP chart I used was the one for the 8 days (one day before to 7 days after the tsunami) - I can't link to it directly because GCP apparently doesn't allow external navigation to individual pages.

The geomagnetic data I used was from here: http://crlhir.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2004%2C12%2C26

I took the GCP chart, removed part of the background and scaled it to the same scale as the geomagnetic data and laid them side by side. The result is below. Although it's only a rough visual comparison, it sure looks like there is some correlation to me. Unfortunately, without raw data from a single egg and the local momentary geomagnetic data for that same egg it seems to be impossible to actually run the numbers meaningfully. But if anyone is interested, it looks like it may be an interesting avenue to investigate.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 05:34 PM

Hmm, here's another one, the 7 day data for September 11 2001 compared with the geomagnetic K index values for the same period. Another interesting correspondence.

Here is the K index data: http://crlhir.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2001%2C9%2C11

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist

For what it's worth, if I was expected to analyse such data I wouldn't just be running simple stats on it. I'd be running Fourier analyses on it to see if there were persistent periodic patterns, and autocorrelations across various windows as well as crosscorrelations with redundant generators (with different degrees of shielding) during the same time period - and in particular I'd be looking for aliasing across different windows. And I'd be doing similar analyses of the power line state and other measurable variables like the background radiation flux etc. And of course the DIEHARD as well (I don't know whether the DIEHARD tests include any of these analyses).

Glad to hear it. Since you are taking the skeptical approach, you are expected to actually analyze the data. Will you tell us when you have your analysis done?

Or was this just you being hypothetical, as if such words mean anything?

GCP mention that Fourier analyses can be done - but they don't say that they are done routinely.

But such analyses have been done (hint: do a search on their site for "Fourier").

And where are the external influence measurements? Have they bothered to try correlating with solar activity for example?

Again, if you had "bothered" to use the Search function (hint: look for "Geomagnetic"), you would have answered your own question.

I note in their FAQ they simply claim their equipment is "shielded" and external factors don't count - yeah, right!

I looked at their FAQ (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/faq.html), and what they actually say is

"What about disturbance in the power grid, or extraordinary levels of cell phone usage, or other EM fields? Might these be an explanation for the deviations in a case like September 11 2001?

Such influences would have a geographical concentration. In this example, they would center on New York and Washington, of course, but the eggs are distributed around the world. Their average distance from New York is more than 4000 miles (~6400 Km). More important, the design of the research-grade instruments we use includes both physical shielding and a logic stage that excludes first-order biasing (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html#logic) from electromagnetic or other physical causes. Thus we are forced to look elsewhere for the source of the induced structure. "

You don't believe they are shielded, OK.

You also left out the "logic stage" part for some reason. Why?

Some would consider it a sad indictment of society that a "statistical industry" could even exist! :D

Those who are ignorant of its role in the advancement of the sciences, yes.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Glad to hear it. Since you are taking the skeptical approach, you are expected to actually analyze the data. Will you tell us when you have your analysis done?

Or was this just you being hypothetical, as if such words mean anything?

Glad to see you had a new haystack delivered, I was worried you'd be running low on straw by now...

No Justin, I am not "expected" to analyse the data. I am not the one running the alleged experiment, if it were my experiment I would be "expected" to analyse the data. Of course if you want to disagree, then fine - in which case where is your analysis? I mean, surely I'm not the only one "expected" to analyse the data?

And you know full well it is impossible for anyone to analyse the data in the context in which I mentioned it. Which was continuous analysis of the raw egg output alongside contiguous local control measurements of ambiental variables. Since the data I would like to see doesn't exist, there is nothing to analyse - which was my point.

You must be getting really desperate if that's the best argument you can come up with!

Originally posted by jzs
But such analyses have been done (hint: do a search on their site for "Fourier").

Routinely? On the raw output per egg? That was what I said. I can't find that a via a search of their site, perhaps you could tell me the sequence of links I need to click on to find out where it says that they continuously and routinely Fourier analyse the raw output data?

Originally posted by jzs
Again, if you had "bothered" to use the Search function (hint: look for "Geomagnetic"), you would have answered your own question.

Yes, I found that after I posted. One cursory analysis of a single date... Which shows correlations which they judge to be "not significant".

By the way, I assume that you actually looked at the "todo" list?

We are interested in exploratory assessments of other parameters as possible indicators. We also expect to explore correlations with environmental variables including automatically registered global-scale measures such as sidereal time, geomagnetic field fluctuations, and seismographic activity.

So they hope to do such analyses in the future...

How long exactly has this project been running? Several years, no? And they hope one day to actually check whether there is any environmental influence...

I wonder how long before they actually think of installing some ambiental environment monitors in the vicinity of the actual eggs? :rolleyes:

But of course they don't really need to check such trivia, do they? Because they already know that it's all due to "global consciousness", don't they?

We use devices called random event generators (REG) that usually produce a continuous sequence of completely unpredictable numbers which can be recorded in computer files. Experiments have shown that human consciousness can make the string of numbers slightly non-random when people hold intentions to do so, or when there is a special state of coherent group consciousness. The difference is very small, but statistical analysis demonstrates that this correlation of the REG behavior with something about consciousness is real. It is as if our wishes could change the 50/50 odds of a coin flip ever so slightly.

It turns out that this small effect of consciousness on the electronic REG isn't diminished by distance or shielding, so it apparently isn't brought about by something physical like temperature changes, or sound waves, or electromagnetic radiation. Instead it seems that information is the important thing. The data that we collect is changed from an expected random condition to a a slightly structured condition, detectable by statistical tests. Such structure implies that the numbers are not completely unpredictable, and that we can expect to see trends or patterns that should not appear in truly random data.

I mean, why ruin a perfectly good theory with pesky facts...?

Originally posted by jzs
I looked at their FAQ (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/faq.html), and what they actually say is

"What about disturbance in the power grid, or extraordinary levels of cell phone usage, or other EM fields? Might these be an explanation for the deviations in a case like September 11 2001?

Such influences would have a geographical concentration. In this example, they would center on New York and Washington, of course, but the eggs are distributed around the world. Their average distance from New York is more than 4000 miles (~6400 Km). More important, the design of the research-grade instruments we use includes both physical shielding and a logic stage that excludes first-order biasing (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html#logic) from electromagnetic or other physical causes. Thus we are forced to look elsewhere for the source of the induced structure. "

I guess solar flares would have a geographical concentration? Large scale interactions of solar winds with the magnetosphere?

Originally posted by jzs
You don't believe they are shielded, OK.

I didnt say that, and you know it. I don't believe they are adequately shielded, no. They only claim that they are shielded against "EM". O.K. what EM? High energy gamma? Cosmic rays? Thermal?

From: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/jseNelson.pdf

Moreover, the design of the research-grade instruments includes both physical shielding (minimal in the Orion devices)

Now, let's see you argue that "minimal" is "adequate"...

Originally posted by jzs
You also left out the "logic stage" part for some reason. Why?

Because in my opinion, that's just too silly for words! And I'm not the only one who thinks so, since I agree with another commentator's assessment on it, I'll quote what he has to say. Here is the opinion of Dr Jeffrey D. Scargle, Nasa Space Science division:

From: Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 571-577, 2002

Throwing Out the Baby With the Bath Water?
GCP data processing includes the application of a logical XOR operator to the bit stream. The process actually involves an XOR between two physical random digit streams, followed by a deterministic flipping of every second bit (Roger Nelson, personal communication). The purpose of this operation is to filter out â€˜â€˜... trends attributable to spurious physical sourcesâ€™â€™ (RDN) and â€˜â€˜to ensure that the mean output is unbiased regardless of environmental conditions, component interaction, or agingâ€™â€™ (DR).
However, the bit flipping operation also renders the GCP completely insensitive to a whole class of possible effects. For example, suppose there were a mental signalâ€”perhaps transcending ordinary human senses and known laws of physicsâ€”generated by, and acting coherently in, groups of humans. Suppose further that this signal acts to change the relative frequency of 0s and 1s in RNG's by a statistically significant amount. Isn't this what global consciousness is all about? No, according to GCP! The GCP system is insensitive to such a signal because the bit flipping operation would null it out (along with possible interference). The GCP is seeking evidence of effects that operate directly on the â€˜â€˜final answer.â€™â€™ Different Readers will no doubt have different assessments on this matter.
Perhaps expressing my personal astonishment at all this, I characterize what GCP is seeking as hyper-transcendentalâ€”i.e., the system is purposefully sensitive to only effects that transcend both direct sensory detection and elementary causality as described above. The GCP explicitly excludes direct coherent effects which, if discovered, would revolutionize science in a heartbeat. Their position seems to be that such â€˜â€˜physicalistâ€™â€™ causal effects are not being pursued because they have already been ruled out (RDN, personal communiÂ_cation).

and, later in the same paper, under recommendations:

"Do not carry out the XOR operation, work to improve shielding of spurious interference, or - if systematic errors are really suspected - record the data both with and without XOR"

In effect, the hypothesis of GCP has to assume that either "global consciousness" knows in advance how it will be processed and adjusts itself accordingly to bypass the later corrections (like the XOR) or it directly affects logic level outputs of computers. The first is just ridiculous, and the second would mean we could just measure "global consciousness" with simple logic circuits and look for a logical anomaly. Which would be vastly easier and clearer than the current setup - and it would give fairly unequivocal results. It appears that the GCP personnel are advocating the former idea...

Either way, I would record the raw output prior to the XOR, (and they could record the XOR too if they wanted). But they don't - which is the whole point.

If someone suspects a potential systematic error in something, then surely the only logical course of action is to record the raw data which actually shows whether such an error exists or not? Don't you think? Do GCP do that? No. They just assume that it will be taken care of by the XOR.

Originally posted by jzs
Those who are ignorant of its role in the advancement of the sciences, yes.

Or maybe those who are well aware how it can be abused. ;)

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 07:30 PM

Hey Justin, you may find this link useful if you run low of supplies...

http://www.centormall.com/Central_Oregon_Ranch_Supply/

:D

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Hey Justin, you may find this link useful if you run low of supplies...

http://www.centormall.com/Central_Oregon_Ranch_Supply/

:D

I am already convinced you are from the 'Horselaugh' school. No further demonstration is needed on your part.

(p.s. I don't live in Oregon)

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 07:42 PM

, I am not "expected" to analyse the data. I am not the one running the alleged experiment, if it were my experiment I would be "expected" to analyse the data

If you are making comments on the data analysis, I'd have expected you to analyze the data to have a basis from which to make comments.

And you know full well ...

I didnt say that, and you know it. ...

Please don't attempt to dictate to me what I know.

Yes, I found that after I posted. One cursory analysis of a single date...

Glad you found that. Yes one analysis, on that page. It links to another. And if you search more, you will find another. You also didn't specify how many of these would satisfy you, so you can keep moving those goalposts.

Which shows correlations which they judge to be "not significant".

Yes. Think about what "not significant" means in this case.

So they hope to do such analyses in the future...

Yes, they are guilty of improving their research. They already have done some stuff on sidereal time and on geomagnetic field fluctuations, and it looks like they want to do more.

How long exactly has this project been running? Several years, no?

They have information about project duration on their page.

Because they already know that it's all due to "global consciousness", don't they?

Feel free to post where they specifically say this. Or are you telling us what they know too?

Scargle stuff snipped

Yes, the GCP folk have Scargle's comments upon their page and they are open to his criticisms, as well as the criticisms of May and Spottiswoode.

In effect, the hypothesis of GCP has to assume that either "global consciousness" knows in advance how it will be processed and

Here we go again. The assuming what a hypothetical thing hypothetically does, for the purpose of debunking attempts. Don't look at the data; just make assumptions.

They just assume that it will be taken care of by the XOR.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Orion, for example, has passed the DIEHARD tests. That leaves your criticism rather vacuous.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by jzs
If you are making comments on the data, I'd have expected you to analyze the data to have a basis from which to make comments.

So if I say that the data I want to see doesn't exist, you expect that I should analyse the data that doesn't exist before making that comment? Way to go Justin! :) I hope your foot isn't getting too sore...! :D

Originally posted by jzs
Don't dictate to me what I know.

You are absolutely right, I forgot about your reading comprehension problem, sorry. I guess you don't know what I actually said. Just because I wrote it explicitly on here, I shouldn't make silly assumptions that you would be able to read it and understand.

Originally posted by jzs
Feel free to post where they specifically say this. Or are you telling us what they know too?

I did. Unfortunately I forgot about your reading comprehension problem, as I said...

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, the GCP folk have Scargle's comments upon their page and agree with some of his criticism.

And?

Originally posted by jzs
Here we go again. The assuming what a hypothetical thing hypothetically does, for the purpose of debunking attempts. Don't look at the data; just make assumptions.

So tell me, why is it acceptable for them to assume what a hypothetical thing hypothetically does? Why is acceptable for them to prejudge the conclusion and declare the hypothetical thing as a fact? And again, unfortunately due to your comprehension problem you obviously didn't understand what I said. I said I would like to see raw data that is collected without assumptions as to some hypothetical thing.

Originally posted by jzs
You keep ignoring the fact that the Orion, for example, has passed the DIEHARD tests. That leaves your criticism rather empty.

No. Not the Orion has passed the DIEHARD tests (generically). An Orion, or some Orions are alleged to have passed the DIEHARD tests sometime in the past. Which is totally irrelevant to anything I said. Which you would know if you didn't have a reading comprehension problem... :rolleyes:

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by jzs
I am already convinced you are from the 'Horselaugh' school. No further demonstration is needed on your part.

(p.s. I don't live in Oregon)

Oh, not in Oregon huh? Too bad. Well, looks like you're not having any problem finding straw wherever you are... :D

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 08:20 PM

, I forgot about your reading comprehension problem,

I shouldn't make silly assumptions that you would be able to read it and understand.

Unfortunately I forgot about your reading comprehension problem, as I said...

unfortunately due to your comprehension problem you obviously didn't understand what I said

if you didn't have a reading comprehension problem...

When you find some substance, find me.

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 08:21 PM

see above

Hawk one

21st March 2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by jzs

When you find some substance, find me. [/B]

OK, how about this thread? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870796272#post1870796272 ). I'll be so kind as to show you the more glaring example of what is either you a) having reading comprehension problems or b) lying.

Originally posted by jzs
AGAIN, since you dodged it the last time: those specific 7 charts, or sun-sign charts in general?

I said that those sampled charts were the only ones relevant to a specific inference drawn in relation to those specific charts. As you well know. Does it ever occur to you that anyone can simply read the thread above and see exactly what I said? Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

Who do you think you are fooling liar? Anyone can see whether I dodged the question or not. Perhaps I "dodged it" like this in my last post:

Originally posted by Pragmatist
The article makes no reference to similar charts, therefore it is self-evident that the inference is in relation to those specific charts.

...or maybe I "dodged it" like this in my post before that one:

Originally posted by Pragmatist
His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.

...which, incidentally, you even quoted in your last reply...yeah, I really "dodged" that question didn't I? :rolleyes:

And if we look at this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870825031#post1870825031), found earlier in this thread, we see another example where you are shown to misrepresent another poster either by intent or by lack of competence.

You want more, or will this do for now?

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Hawk one
OK, how about this thread? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870796272#post1870796272 ). I'll be so kind as to show you the more glaring example of what is either you a) having reading comprehension problems or b) lying.

Great example. Each instance I ask you know who for evidence he just says 'I already gave it' or things to that affect, even when he hadn't.

I said that those sampled charts were the only ones relevant to a specific inference drawn in relation to those specific charts.

So I'm wondering then, what does asking "your" astrologer have to do with it? Or talking about "astrologers" in general. Odd wording if he was just talking about those specific 7.

Not to mention Claus considers 6 out of 7 not agreement? That seems like fairly strong agreement to me. If he had 100 charts and 99 showed agreement, he wouldn't count that as agreement. What he is really looking at is perfect agreement. He should at least be upfront and say that.

And if we look at this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870825031#post1870825031), found earlier in this thread, we see another example where you are shown to misrepresent another poster either by intent or by lack of competence.

Zep didn't, doesn't, and possibly won't, analyze the data, period. He brings up what the hypothetical GC could hypothetically do. Therefore, my comments still stand in regards to him assuming the GC exists but only for the purpose of debunking and not looking at the actual data.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 08:46 PM

Editing your post to add several new points 10 minutes after I replied to it. Now that really is desperate!

Originally posted by jzs
Glad you found that. Yes one analysis, on that page. It links to another. And if you search more, you will find another. You also didn't specify how many of these would satisfy you, so you can keep moving those goalposts.

I only found analyses for one date/event. How many different non-contiguous dates/events with such analyses did you find?

Originally posted by jzs
Yes. Think about what "not significant" means in this case.

It means that statistically in that particular case alone there appears to be no significant correlation between the massaged data and the K index - which is highly processed data itself. Which tells us nothing about whether there is a systematic correlation between the geomagnetic field and the raw data output of the RNG, or whether the K index correlates with a contributory effect which by itself is below the level of statistical significance.

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, they are guilty of improving their research. They already have done some stuff on sidereal time and on geomagnetic field fluctuations, and it looks like they want to do more.

You don't think it might have been wise to look for environmental correlations before assuming the effect was due to "global consciousness"?

Originally posted by jzs
They have information about project duration on their page.

So how long has it been running then? How long is a reasonable time to run before checking for external influences?

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Hawk one

Originally posted by Pragmatist
His inference is to any population of astrologers who use those specific charts.

Think about this long and hard... and take your time.

How can he possibly know my astrologer (hypothetical) uses those specific charts that he found? In the article he says to ask "your astrologer".

A reader in Africa... their astrologer is going to use some Danish charts? Or my astrologer, who doesn't even use those charts, I am supposed to ask them about disagreement based on charts they don't even use? Are you really expecting anybody to believe this?

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 08:50 PM

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist

It means that statistically in that particular case alone

Again, please tell everyone your requirement for how many cases you wish to see so you'll possibly stop moving the goalposts.

You don't think it might have been wise to look for environmental correlations before assuming the effect was due to "global consciousness"?

Again, show me specifically where they say it is due to global consciousness. You keep avoiding this. Hint: saying 'I already did!' or resorting to your embarassing 'reading comprehension' smear doesn't work.

So how long has it been running then?

Search their site and find out.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by jzs

When you find some substance, find me. [/B]

Well I found you some straw, seems to be the only substance you deal in.

Oops, my mistake, straw is not the only substance you deal in. I forgot your fondness for male bovine manure... :)

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Well I found you some straw, seems to be the only substance you deal in. Oops, my mistake, straw is not the only substance you deal in. I forgot your fondness for male bovine manure... :)

zzz zzzz

Do you have anything else to say before you go on Ignore with the other anti-science scoffers?

If so, I won't be seeing it.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Again, please tell everyone your requirement for how many cases you wish to see so you'll possibly stop moving the goalposts.

How about all the cases they have already generated formal hypotheses for - that would be only reasonable wouldn't it?

By the way, you forgot to answer my question. Just how many independent date/events did they run K index analyses for?

And you're a liar. I never moved any goalposts, I said I could only find an analysis for one event/date set. You claimed there were more than that, but I'm still waiting to hear just how many independent event/date sets they analysed, so far I hear lots of words and see no evidence from you...

I mean, surely you wouldn't be trying to argue that 3 separate analyses of one sample is significant would you? Ever heard of pseudoreplication?

Originally posted by jzs
Again, show me specifically where they say it is due to global consciousness. You keep avoiding this. Hint: saying 'I already did!' or resorting to your embarassing 'reading comprehension' smear doesn't work.

Post no. 1870827194 above. What precisely about:

Experiments have shown that human consciousness can make the string of numbers slightly non-random when people hold intentions to do so, or when there is a special state of coherent group consciousness.

or

It turns out that this small effect of consciousness on the electronic REG isn't diminished by distance or shielding,

from their procedure description didn't you understand?

Originally posted by jzs
Search their site and find out.

Don't want to admit it huh? How about 6 1/2 YEARS! So when exactly are they going to start applying the most rudimentary controls?

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by jzs
zzz zzzz

Do you have anything else to say before you go on Ignore with the other anti-science scoffers?

If so, I won't be seeing it.

Yes, that really is "addressing the issues", isn't it? :D

Hawk one

21st March 2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by jzs

Great example. Each instance I ask you know who for evidence he just says 'I already gave it' or things to that affect, even when he hadn't.

This is certainly a great example of you really not being able to admit any error on your part at all. Would you mind explaining to me why you asked Pragmatist to keep clarifying for you whether or not he was talking only about the astrologers after had done so several times already? And can you tell me why you kept claiming he didn't have, when it was obvious that he already had? Was it because you have reading comprehension problems, or did you just outright lie?

So I'm wondering then, what does asking "your" astrologer have to do with it? Or talking about "astrologers" in general. Odd wording if he was just talking about those specific 7.

Not to mention Claus considers 6 out of 7 not agreement? That seems like fairly strong agreement to me. If he had 100 charts and 99 showed agreement, he wouldn't count that as agreement. What he is really looking at is perfect agreement. He should at least be upfront and say that.

Yawn. Come back if and when astrology is considered a proper science. Yes, so perhaps people let their wording slip every now and then. Why not? Astrology hasn't got a speck of real evidence going for it and you know it. If that leads to people talking about astrologers in general at times, then so be it.

And I'd certainly expect at least 99 charts out of hundred showing agreement if I were to even suggest that it could be an acceptable amount of agreement by scientific standard. Because if atrology was a real science, it would certainly have progressed to the point of gaining full accuracy by now, having all these centuries of testing. 86,9% isn't close.

And besides, on an overall basis, those charts had a agreement far lower than 86% anyway. Heck, not even two charts are capable of showing full agreement. The closest thing is that some of them uses the same basis of diagonal pattern, but even then they end up disagreeing.

Zep didn't, doesn't, and possibly won't, analyze the data, period. He brings up what the hypothetical GC could hypothetically do. Therefore, my comments still stand in regards to him assuming the GC exists but only for the purpose of debunking and not looking at the actual data.

One can say that the first part is true, but only because there's no raw data available to analyse. Or did you not understand Donks when he mentioned his attempt?

And with the lack of proper data, why should one blame Pragmatist of being forced to assume things for the sake of argument? And by the way, "for the sake of argument" means something else than "for the sake of debunking". Yet another deliberate misinterpretation from you. Hardly surprising.

Pragmatist

21st March 2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Great example. Each instance I ask you know who for evidence he just says 'I already gave it' or things to that affect, even when he hadn't.

If you're talking about me, you're a liar.

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Hawk one

Come back if and when astrology is considered a proper science.

Well that certainly had nothing to do with anything. I think you are confused somewhat. The currently studied topics in science are not science itself. Science is a method of investigating.

Yes, so perhaps people let their wording slip every now and then. Why not?

This is your justification for not criticising Claus shabby inference? He was talking about all astrologers from a convenience sample of 7. It looks like his "world" of peer reviewers missed that slip.

Astrology hasn't got a speck of real evidence going for it and you know it.

Please don't dictate to me what I know. In my write-up, I said I agree that this data showed poor agreement. I never said otherwise. I did, however, make a point that his inference was invalid. I sincerely hope you are able to distinguish between those things.

And I'd certainly expect at least 99 charts out of hundred showing agreement if I were to even suggest that it could be an acceptable amount of agreement by scientific standard.

There's not 100% agreement in many areas of science.

And besides, on an overall basis, those charts had a agreement far lower than 86% anyway. Heck, not even two charts are capable of showing full agreement.

And two charts show little, especially when they are taken from a convenience sample. We have no way of knowing if the charts are representative of the whole. Keep ignoring this, because it demolishes your case.

One can say that the first part is true, but only because there's no raw data available to analyse.

There is raw data, raw count data. You seem to be saying if there are no 1's and 0's to analyze then the whole shebang is bunk. I say that is a nice out for you. You find a little thing the experiment is missing, request it, when it is not available you declare "bunk" and forget about analyze the raw count data. Even when suggesting to buy an RNG (which would be cheaper, I'd imagine, then taking off work, flying to Florida, and staying in a hotel for many days to analyze JREF data, for comparison), then the out is 'oh, I wanted the data from the specific Orions that the GCP are using, not the data from any Orion (even though they are the same product).

Am I close?

I'll summarize by quoting Claus Lite

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

He assumes it exists but only for purposes of debunking, and won't even consider anything else ("Never").

"End of story" indeed.

rwguinn

22nd March 2005, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by jzs

<<<Snip major errors and rants due to RC problems and circular logic:>>
He assumes it exists but only for purposes of debunking, and won't even consider anything else ("Never").

"End of story" indeed. [/B]

The terminally stupid deserve only our sympathies. They can't help it, and there is no cure. Pray for them... ;)

T'ai Chi

22nd March 2005, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by rwguinn
The terminally stupid deserve only our sympathies. They can't help it, and there is no cure. Pray for them... ;)

Then Claus Lite should back up his assertion that

"The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running."

I'll wait..

Zep

22nd March 2005, 05:07 PM

Jzs:
Zep didn't, doesn't, and possibly won't, analyze the data, period. He brings up what the hypothetical GC could hypothetically do. Therefore, my comments still stand in regards to him assuming the GC exists but only for the purpose of debunking and not looking at the actual data.Don't you just love this, folks? After numerous previous posts from me that corrected this little set of lies, and in bold red print no less, he's still at it.

It's not a "reading comprehension" problem at all, it's ****-STIRRING, pure and simple. Jzs, thy name is...

TROLL
http://www.foundus.com/jani/gnomes/images/Troll.jpg

T'ai Chi

22nd March 2005, 06:35 PM

Claus Lite,

Can you remain focused and actually back up your claim of

"The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running."

?

Just how do you know that?

I'll wait for you to get your thoughts organized.

Zep

22nd March 2005, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Claus Lite,

Can you remain focused and actually back up your claim of

"The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running."

?

Just how do you know that?

I'll wait for you to get your thoughts organized. Quote out of context. Again.

Troll.

Justin, please meet Mr Ignore. Mr Ignore, meet Jus [click].....

T'ai Chi

22nd March 2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Quote out of context. Again.

Claus Lite, let's see your entire paragraph, to examine your claim that me just posting you saying "The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running." is taking you out of context.

You said

"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.

Me just quoting "The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running." was in no way taking your quote out of context, unless you consider things like "you are still way wrong" to add context and meaning.

You are simply making assumptions about what a hypothetical GC can hypothetically do, for purposes of debunking. You refuse to consider any data because no matter what, you are convinced the GC exists, for purposes of debunking, and therefore the data is worthless. You are, very transparently, not taking a skeptical approach here.

You have also said

"No, I ALLOW IT TO BE SO for the purposes of ARGUMENT"

How nice of you to allow a hypothetical thing what it can hypothetically do! ...which is exactly the same as assuming it exists only for the purposes of debunking, as I've been saying all along.

At least you're consistent.

Donks

22nd March 2005, 07:50 PM

jzs: One question. Let's say I was to analyze their data (I'm not saying that I am going to analyze the data, let's just say I'm considering, though the chances of me going through with it are remote at best). My knowledge of statistics and stochastic systems is, let's just say very limited. I was wondering, which methods would you suggest be employed to analyze the data that is available?

Pragmatist

22nd March 2005, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Claus Lite,

Can you remain focused and actually back up your claim of

"The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running."

?

Just how do you know that?

I'll wait for you to get your thoughts organized.

First he was calling me "Claus Lite", now he's calling Zep that - one wonders about the credibility of someone who can't even keep their epithets in order! :D

Hawk one

22nd March 2005, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
First he was calling me "Claus Lite", now he's calling Zep that - one wonders about the credibility of someone who can't even keep their epithets in order! :D

What credibility? A man that - amongst other dishonourable actions - quoted you clarifying a point, and in the same post yet again asks for clarification, and who won't even admit to this mistake or lie... He couldn't have much credibility to wonder about, could he?

And is it just me, or does he appear to take his lessons of "arguing" from Interesting Ian?

Pragmatist

22nd March 2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Hawk one
What credibility? A man that - amongst other dishonourable actions - quoted you clarifying a point, and in the same post yet again asks for clarification, and who won't even admit to this mistake or lie... He couldn't have much credibility to wonder about, could he?

And is it just me, or does he appear to take his lessons of "arguing" from Interesting Ian?

This is of course true. I wouldn't compare him with Ian though for many reasons. I actually like Ian, he may be deluded, but at least he has a good sense of humour and occasionally can even make a well articulated case.

Justin on the other hand doesn't make any case, he only snipes, and goads, he lies and cheats. The object is not to debate but to get even. Of course he won't succeed being totally out of his depth.

And Ian, despite his many faults isn't malicious. Rude maybe on occasion, but wilfully malicious, no.

69dodge

23rd March 2005, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by jzs
I'm asking if the RNG output is statistically different than what one would expect by chance.Different from what one would expect by chance, assuming what null hypothesis?

Specifying a null hypothesis is very important. It is what allows us to calculate what we would expect to see by chance, and it is what gets disproved (more or less) should we not see what we expect.

If we take as our null hypothesis that our RNG produces perfectly independent bits, each having pefectly equal probability of being 0 or 1, then it's easy to calculate what we expect to see. But then, if we don't see what we expect, all we've shown is that our RNG isn't perfect. Big deal. It's already well known that real RNGs aren't perfect, and in any case we've shown nothing about the existence of global consciousness, whatever that is.

If we want to have any chance of demonstrating global consciousness, our null hypothesis needs to be that global consciousness doesn't exist. Now how are we supposed to calculate what we expect to see from our RNG, based solely on that null hypothesis? All sorts of RNG imperfections are possible even in the absence of global consciousness, and therefore seeing any of those imperfections in our RNG tells us nothing about whether global consciousness exists.Show me their exact claim from that page that supports your claim that they say "RNG's are not necessarily truly random over a long period anyway".That page (http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html) recommends "to XOR the random byte with a pseudo random byte. In that case the resulting bytes will even behave properly for higher order bias effects." If the RNG were necessarily truly random, there would be no need for this recommendation.That's why you look at the data they produce, Claus Lite, to see if they are out of wack or not.How do we distinguish out-of-whackness that is due to global consciousness from out-of-whackness that is due to more mundane causes?What the GCP people do for a 'control' is compare the data on a day that is in the formal hypothesis registry to a neighboring day that is not in the formal hypothesis registry.Where do they say this?

How do they get a specific p-value from such a comparison?

The impression I got from what I've read on their site is that they may look at a few other days just as a sort of informal sanity check, but when it comes down to actually calculating a p-value, they calculate it based on the assumption of an ideal RNG.

Seeing nearly-ideal behavior on a few days does not guarantee that the RNG's behavior is consistently ideal and therefore that any departure from idealness on other days is necessarily due to the effects of global consciousness.How about examining the data? That seems reasonable.Yes, of course.

What should we look for in the data?

What are we justified in concluding, if we find it?

The Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) is called "The Global Consciousness Project," not "The Random Number Generators That Behave Somewhat Nonideally But We Don't Know Why Project."