The human mind and random numbers

nsaspook said:

Until someone has one counterexample of bells theorem, yes.
**broken link removed**

Click to expand...

You can't believe everything you read in a magazine. It's only written by people with their own points of view, just like us. This argument is just going to keep going and going until the thread gets locked

DerStrom8 said:

You can't believe everything you read in a magazine. It's only written by people with their own points of view, just like us. This argument is just going to keep going and going until the thread gets locked

Click to expand...

That's a winning argument for a off topic area.
Why should it be locked?

Bells theorem needs no counter example, it needs a proof first or it will remain forever a theory. Science does not require refutation of a theory, it needs the theory to prove itself over time and testing, which has not yet occurred. The methods and mathematics to prove a deterministic reality will likewise never be provable, we know too little about the constitutes of our own reality.

You can't get there from here...

Sceadwian said:

Bells theorem needs no counter example, it needs a proof first or it will remain forever a theory. Science does not require refutation of a theory, it needs the theory to prove itself over time and testing, which has not yet occurred. The methods and mathematics to prove a deterministic reality will likewise never be provable, we know too little about the constitutes of our own reality.

You can't get there from here...

Click to expand...

A very good and proper response that I disagree with but accept as totally valid also.

Thank you so very much for that statement nsaspook, I can respect you completely for making it and can concede that my way is not 'the way' and that I accept that your way is possible. I just disagree with it =)

nsaspook said:

That's a winning argument for a off topic area.
Why should it be locked?

Click to expand...

Haha, sorry, that sounded worse than I intended

I wasn't saying it should be locked. I'm just saying that some threads just go on and on without actually solving anything, and the mods might close it. I guess I'm thinking about Allaboutcircuits right now, sorry. They have much stricter mods there. I'm not sure I've seen it here, though, so I take back the second part of that post

Sceadwian said:

Andrew, the field variation that anmials (and some people) are senstaive to are VERY low frequency. The frequency that electronic devices put out and are susceptible to are incredibly high, and in reality the actual influence of even VERY strong electric and magnetic fields on electronics is EXTREMELY weak.

Click to expand...

The human mind puts out 0 - 100Hz waves, but scientists have proven that the nervous system could be damaged by high frequency waves (cellular phones).
Yes, most electronic devices put out high frequency waves. But are we sure that they are sensitive to high frequency only?
Obviously this is just an hypothesis, nothing is proven. The only fact is that random generators result to be affected by human mind...

andrewblog said:

The human mind puts out 0 - 100Hz waves, but scientists have proven that the nervous system could be damaged by high frequency waves (cellular phones).
Yes, most electronic devices put out high frequency waves. But are we sure that they are sensitive to high frequency only?
Obviously this is just an hypothesis, nothing is proven. The only fact is that random generators result to be affected by human mind...

Click to expand...

There is little statistical evidence that the tiny amount of non-ionizing energy (heat) from cell phones causes damage. If it did the amount of energy absorbed by people everyday by a large thermonuclear reactor 1AU away would have wiped out all life long ago.

The effects of energy from DC to gamma waves on electronics is well known and in most cases simple physical countermeasures can stop any influence.

If you can prove a human mind can influence a true random number generator I know some people who will pay you big bucks.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

If you can prove a human mind can influence a true random number generator I know some people who will pay you big bucks.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Click to expand...

My original topic is about populations effecting a RNG and then only when significant events occur.

3v0 said:

My original topic is about populations effecting a RNG and then only when significant events occur.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just dense but I fail to see the difference in the process of many humans minds effecting it or one? Zero*"any large number" is still zero. Are we to assume a fractional PSI power in each human that can be harnessed only by great combined effort?

3v0 said:

My original topic is about populations effecting a RNG and then only when significant events occur.

Click to expand...

Sorry 3v0, I guess it was my fault we got so far off topic. I asked the question about "what is random", which brought us off into this tangent. My apologies.

The only fact is that random generators result to be affected by human mind.

Click to expand...

That's not a fact at all, as far as I know any study that has made this claim has been debunked and there are no substantiated (by multiple sources) proof that the effect exist.

I personally highly doubt it because modern random number generators aren't in fact random at all, they might produce a set of number with equal chances of highs or lows but this does not mean it's random, just that the number set is evenly distributed, the next result an a random number sequences is always deterministic, at least for software/processor based RNGs.

Hi Scaedwian, there's no reason to assume the RNGs used in the human mind experiment are pure software algorithmic generators. It would make sense they they would use a physical RNG of some type, like measuring radioactive decay pops or measuring the time for a cap to charge and arc over in a neon bulb etc.

Unlike a predetermined number sequence, those things are physically part of the real world and *possibly* affected by it.

The problem I see with the human mind thing is how does your human input affect the actual number generated? Maybe your mind could make the neon arc over quicker, if your mind had the ability to affect the real world. BUT how would that relate to the number generated and displayed? Probably in such a loose and scrambled fashion there would be no correlation in the RNG numbers even if you were making the neon arc over quicker.

As 3v0 stated we need to see the specific workings of the RNG and how the output number is generated! I would also like to see how that number is affected by charge and any real world factors.

Mr RB said:

Hi Scaedwian, there's no reason to assume the RNGs used in the human mind experiment are pure software algorithmic generators. It would make sense they they would use a physical RNG of some type, like measuring radioactive decay pops or measuring the time for a cap to charge and arc over in a neon bulb etc.

Unlike a predetermined number sequence, those things are physically part of the real world and *possibly* affected by it.

The problem I see with the human mind thing is how does your human input affect the actual number generated? Maybe your mind could make the neon arc over quicker, if your mind had the ability to affect the real world. BUT how would that relate to the number generated and displayed? Probably in such a loose and scrambled fashion there would be no correlation in the RNG numbers even if you were making the neon arc over quicker.

As 3v0 stated we need to see the specific workings of the RNG and how the output number is generated! I would also like to see how that number is affected by charge and any real world factors.

Click to expand...

That is a valid hypothesis. But the surprising fact is that an event happened in the USA (11 September for example) affected the random generators located around the world.

andrewblog said:

That is a valid hypothesis. But the surprising fact is that an event happened in the USA (11 September for example) affected the random generators located around the world.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

According to The Age, Nelson concedes "the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to."[24]

Robert Matthews called it "the most sophisticated attempt yet" to prove psychokinesis existed, but cited the unreliability of significant events to cause statistically significant spikes, concluding "the only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative".[25]

Click to expand...

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2011/11/Sep1101.pdf

Maybe they were using this RNG. **broken link removed**

But after a little research I think they really used these and similar generators with a laptop as the RNG platform.
https://comscire.com/Products/J1000KU/
https://tams-www.informatik.uni-ham...etseiten/valley.interact.nl/RNG/home.html#how

andrew, what event? You're spouting non-sense now.

..the surprising fact is that an event happened in the USA (11 September for example) affected the random generators located around the world.

Click to expand...

That is what I realized by reading here, probably a wrong interpretation.
I'm sorry, but I'm not an English native speaker.

Those data's are an attempt to backwards construct correlations to an event from raw data AFTER the event. That's not science it's junk science created by people that simply don't know any better.

If there were any truth to the matter then a predictive algorithm would result which would be able to predict world events BEFORE they occurred. The problem is that the peaks in this type of data are only AROUND THE EVENT, this is proof of nothing more than when a major world event occurs in a world that is massively connected (via the internet and media sources) that people react strongly, of course these kinds of trends are going to occur, it's common sense.

Anyone that states that the event itself can be predicted by the data is a fool though because the data doesn't exist outside of the event itself!

Anyone that can prove me wrong can determine the future. I'd REALLY like to see that =)

These are good questions to be asking, but global consciousness is a little out there considering that even the best modern science, philosophy, and psychology can do is struggle with the understanding of what individual consciousness is.

I've personally been struggling with this for the majority of my adult life.

nsaspook said:

...
But after a little research I think they really used these and similar generators with a laptop as the RNG platform.
https://comscire.com/Products/J1000KU/
https://tams-www.informatik.uni-ham...etseiten/valley.interact.nl/RNG/home.html#how

Click to expand...

Excellent info thanks!

Both of those generators use electrical noise, "thermal noise" or "zener noise" as stated in their blurbs. Those are real world phenomena, possibly affected by a world event.

BUT (and it's a big but) that noise is only used as a seed, by a computer algortihm that works on the noise data and reduces total data generated, while at the same time ensuring roughly equal bias (bit1:bit0).

So the "data" generated is very far from a true representation of what the actual noise source did, and the whole point of the computer algorithm is to generate data very different from what the noise source is doing (but uses SOME of the noise data to seed the RNG).

There is another catch, the computer algorithms are likely long (thousand of instructions per loop?) so how do they synchronise all the laptops to be executing the same loop number as each other? Or the same position within the internal loop?

I think there is way too much "hoping for a result" going on.

Maybe if they got rid of the RNGs and just used noise sources of exact equivalent design it might be a more credible test.

Well, by reading here I have learned something more about these random data "generators". If my interpretation is right, they work by physical randomness, in other words the events.