I saw on TV that there are random number generators which did not function randomly around the time of the events of 9-11-01. Here is one such website about that time's measurements: random number generators as measurers of global consciousness. Is the hypothesis that there is measureable global consciousness still up in the air, rock solid, or somewhere in between? Or, how significant is the change from randomness, given the seemingly informal experiment, to you?
There are issues with the probability tests - a lot of the graphs are designed specifically to cause "deviations."
Rather than going into the math, I'll address a fallacy in logic. The project consists of random numbers generated over the course of years. The analysis consists of noting that something big happened, then looking to see if there's any change in the signal. No change? No worry, in most cases. Just look later. Still no change? Still no worry. Just look earlier (global conciousness combined with global ESP!). Still no change? Well, it doesn't have to work every time to be right, right?
Some of the ways the data is processed require a starting point, you need to know when something happened to see what effect it had rather than being able to see an effect without knowing the cause.
Not that seeing an effect without knowing choosing the cause in advance is the only way you can go wrong. Some of the data treatment doesn't require a known starting hour. See a blip where you don't expect one? Well, something must have happened that day.
Among the events it missed were:
The U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The data showed no sign of it. The space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry on February 1, 2003, but had no effect on the random number generators. An earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999 killed nearly 4,000 people, but you wouldn’t know it from examining the pattern of random numbers.
Among the explanations for unexpected blips were:
New Year’s, something called the "Group Mind Meditation", the full moon appearing in Taurus (predicted, apparently, by a channeled Buddha—seriously), World Earth Healing Day (I missed that one), and the casting of a binding spell placed on Osama Bin Laden by a group of Wiccans and pagans (yes, I'm serious).
If you could come up with some way to pick out events that should have effected global conciouness at a known time and come up with a way to analyze the data without knowing about those picks, then compare the two, it might be a valid study. If the times picked out in the "random" data and the times picked out based on world events always matched (again, without the data processing being in any way sensitive to knowledge of the events and with the world events picked without knowledge of the data), then you might be on to something. As is, this seems to be just a mix of post hoc fallacy and confirmation bias. ******** 09-30-06, 12:39 PM DorianGreyed The very definition of random numbers implies occasional "blips." To not have them implies some sort of regularity. If enough random number generators are looked at, mathematically, there will be occasional coincidences. Carefully choosing which generators to include in a sample will certainly result in getting a desired result. Couple that with the fact that "major" events happen several times a year, and you can prove just about anything you want.
I remember reading, years ago, that there is a certain passage in Shakespeare's works that says, upon rearranging all the letters, that "These plays are the works of Theodore Roosevelt." Of course, it says it in Latin.
10-02-06, 12:41 AM tsaeb DorianGreyed: You make several good points. I think that I caught these correctly: 1) randomness with a pattern and without an irregularity here and there is not randomness, 2) coincidences are a possibility, 3) human bias can create distortions which give one the result one seeks, and 4) enough events occur for the forgoing errors to satisfy one into believing that something is true when it is false. As for the thingamagig about Shakespeare's passage, it is not a bad thing that a good method can produce a negative result as long as one knows that such a method does so consistently and expectedly: we want to include the opinions of those who test sloppily or who outright lie. Such is the way that the prophetic method with which I am working yields results--with consistency and expectation. Your first point informs me why the prophetic method does not always work the way that I claim it is cracked up to be: there are exceptions to the rules. Also, I think that I have been keeping my own bias out, since I continually think that there is a scientist looking for scientific rigor looking over my shoulder.
methos: I think that you are saying that if the data can be sensitive to world events or if the world events can be sensitive to the data, then such a sensitivity must exclude any subjective interference on the part of the experimenter. Well, if we can apply the data and the world events to a third medium of analysis, which preexists both the data and the world events, that should do it. That would have to be in my third book. The second one will have to make a place for mathematics, of course, since the first one dealt a lot with the Shakespearian passage type of anagram analysis, or used the alphabet without using mathematics.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: tsaeb, 10-02-06 02:01 AM
10-02-06, 09:47 AM newnickname
quote: Such is the way that the prophetic method with which I am working yields results--with consistency and expectation.
For example..?
10-03-06, 03:31 AM tsaeb newnickname: Eek. It took a whole book to present how the prophetic method uses consistency, and I don't think that I ever used the word "expectation" . . . only hoped that I was using "expectation" (premonition as prophetic words of knowledge?) to understand past and future events. (I think that if one does not yet understand past events, then such lack of understanding, too, can benefit from prophetic words of knowledge, much as can trying to understand future events.) The answer to your question is that it took a book to present. Then, that book was only 1 of 2 books or maybe 1 of 3 books of what I have been trying to set on track for still more books in which the first 2 or 3 books allow applications. So we will all have to be patient, but it does look like quite an impossible dream for a couple of reasons, doesn't it? I am still grappling, too, with your seemingly serious quip in the past that I need a gimmick to boot!
10-03-06, 09:29 AM newnickname If you asked any scientist to briefly explain even the most complex of theories, I'm sure he or she would have a shot at it. If you asked for examples of how the theory could consistantly predict results, again, I'm sure he or she would be willing to give one or two up. Is your "prophetic method" more complex and difficult to explain than quantum physics or random number generation?
10-04-06, 03:25 AM tsaeb newnickname: I remind you that you said in one of the religion forums that you would wait to find out what is in my prophecy book when you find a used copy for sale cheap. So I suppose that you will have to do that very thing to satisfy your curiousity, although some here have done a wiser (and more morally supportive) thing. Razz
10-04-06, 09:30 AM newnickname Maybe Einstein, Newton and Darwin said much the same thing when people asked questions; "Buy the book!" I doubt it, though.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Einstein
What kind of theory is it that can't be summarised?
10-05-06, 04:55 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: What kind of theory is it that can't be summarised?
Here are some possibilities which surprise, tantalize, or annoy: 1. one which is incomplete, 2. one whose mishandling might jeopardize world peace, 3. one which has no presently known academic area in which it could be accepted and taught, 4. one which is expected to cause a revolution in thought when it is applied, 5. one whose applications achieve goals which continue to be believed to be impossible, and 6. one whose developer believes it is God's will to present and defend in bits and pieces.
10-05-06, 12:11 PM newnickname 7. one so weak and flawed it couldn't stand any scrutiny. 8. one so sprawlingly nonsensical and illogical it can't be condensed into a simple and concise outline
10-05-06, 03:21 PM aminator2002 I once watched a guy hit the number 3 a total of 4 times within 10 rolls of the roulette wheel... I think it coincided with the tsunami. Wink
He kept on posting more and more of his money on 3 and we all thought he was completely mad, but he walked away from a $10 table with $3000... nice.
random isn't so random all the time. I just wish I had believed in the lack of randomness and played with him!
(the part about the tsunami is not serious by the way.)
10-05-06, 03:55 PM DorianGreyed Another factor in world events happening in sync with something else is that a day on Earth is longer than 24 hours. By that, I mean that it is a different time, and a different day, in different parts of the world at the same instant. When people speak of those "coincidence" that happen at the same time, I suspect that the "time" may mean at the same instant, or it may mean at the same hour. If something happens at this moment, does it happen at 3:55 pm on Thursday, October 5 (St. Louis, Missouri, USA time), or does it happen on Friday 6:25 am October 6 (Adelaide, Australia time)...or is it Friday, October 5, 1:25 am in Kabul? If I were speaking to a friend in Adelaide, each of us would speak of an earthquake happening while we as happening at a different time and a different day. Yet, if someone want to find some kind of link to that earthquake and something else, they would have a choice of times and days, which would make the relationship look like something it isn't.
10-06-06, 05:59 AM rcck81 why is this even in a thread about mathematics? obviously if you look at any random number generator's output you will see deviations, isn't that the whole point? Who is it that claims to be able to predict the output of a random number generator, they are selling snake oil...
Four men on horseback road down my street when Bush got re-elected, now THAT is a coincidence.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
