PDA

View Full Version : Predicting the future with the Prop. (update in first post)

vampyre
05-17-2008, 05:58 PM
Update as of 5/22/08

the new file is attached, I built it on top of Chip's graphics demo. It now has a lot less BS and a lot more prettiness.
This is going to be the end of this project, as i'm fully immersed in programming my operating system now. I hope someone
enjoys this little diversion from sanity.
__________________________________
Ok this is a bit of a weird story.
I just got my prop proto board a few days ago, and thanks to all the great peeps on this forum I have it up and running with some nifty stuff like PropDos and femtobasic.

I decided to get my feet wet with some first time spin code. Then I remembered my dad recently talking about this paranormal (crazy) theory about how true random numbers aren't as random when a whole lot of people think the same thing at the same time. I think its just a bunch of hippies (no offense to hippy) with nothing better to do than hook random number generators up to the internet ... BUT since the prop can generate real random numbers, my dad has been bugging me to build him a RNG to test this theory out...

so i decided to have a little fun with it. I wrote a program that is supposed to be a 'real magic 8 ball'... that can answer questions about your future using science. its more of an early april fools joke than anything... but here's the weird part. it works.
i've run it over and over and over again, and when i ask it simple, factual questions like 'does 2+2=4' it says yes, and when i ask if 3+3 = 9 it answers no.

of course, this isn't at all possible so i'm assuming this is random chance and it will start failing to answer correctly soon. But i thought it might be fun to play with , so i am gonna try to post the code for you guys to have a look at. And yes the code is
a messy kludge, but i'm up way past my bedtime and this is my first spin proggy after all.

also note: if your a Christian, scrying is a sin. Not trying to preach, but i dont want anyone thinking i promote 'divining the future'

oh, and i should say, i completely respect hippies, and people with beliefs that differ from mine. sorry if this post seems somewhat inflamiatory, i often don't think before i speak

Post Edited (vampyre) : 5/22/2008 8:58:14 AM GMT

daniel
05-17-2008, 08:57 PM

As I read your code, it seems that the answer produced depends on whether 500 +/- 10 of the 1000 random numbers are evaluated as positive-valued longs.

Is this particular test rooted in Nelson's philosophy, or a condition of your own? What do you understand the meaning of this particular test to be?

If your RealRandom is not the one from the object exchange (Real Random v1.2, by Chip Gracey), would you post the source for it, or point point me to its source. I'd like to take a look at what it is doing, too.

Bean
05-17-2008, 08:57 PM
Ask it what the powerball numbers will be.
If it gets that right, then I will believe it.

This can be done by asking "Will the first number be 1", "Will the first number be 2" until you get a YES. Then move on to the second number.

Of course you will have to post the number here BEFORE the drawing for me to believe it.

GOOD LUCK...

Bean.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Did you know that 111,111,111 multiplied by 111,111,111 equals 12345678987654321 ?

www.iElectronicDesigns.com (http://www.iElectronicDesigns.com)

Post Edited (Bean (Hitt Consulting)) : 5/17/2008 3:07:06 PM GMT

simonl
05-17-2008, 09:50 PM
LOL Bean http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,

Simon
-------------------------------
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk (http://www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk)
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

hippy
05-17-2008, 10:48 PM
No offense taken by me and I'm always interested in stuff like this, especially when people put 'kooky theories' to the test. If the theory of influence holds up "Wow!". If it doesn't, we have our "that was BS!" answer. If it mainly works there's a whole world of trying to stablish why that is ( beyond us hippies controlling the universe in our dreams :) ).

My guess is 'works' has something to do with how frequently two independently generated random choices come up the same same. Not my field of expertise at all. Perhaps people are able to do better at guessing random sequences that one would think and subconsciously then chose what and when to ask; machine influencing human rather than the other way round ? Yes, file that under 'kooky' as well :)

Leon
05-18-2008, 12:02 AM
I've followed up some of this stuff and eventually came upon this gadget made by Psyleron:

http://www.psyleron.com/reg1_overview.aspx

It uses a similar technique to that employed in the British ERNIE machine, which used to make the draws for National Savings Bonds. ERNIE actually used random noise coming from a gas discharge tube, IIRC. I doubt·if·the REG-1·really is as truly random as they claim;·a Swiss-made system, the Quantis,·uses quantum events directly, and costs a lot more than the \$295 asked for the REG-1:

http://www.idquantique.com/products/quantis.htm

The claimed effects depend on whether·consciousness·is mediated by a quantum process in the brain, and this hasn't been established.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 5/17/2008 4:07:26 PM GMT

vampyre
05-18-2008, 05:20 AM
Leon: I think you are right about the REG systems. but then again when researching RNG's for security recently i ran across the quantis and after thinking on it a bit, i can't believe that they are any more accurate. If it only fired one photon at a time, then sure i'd buy it.. but i can't see it doing that

daniel: the RealRandom generator is the one written by Chip. Excellent piece of code. my random number detection method
is a simplified version. The difference is that i am using one random number generator instead of lots of them. However
the averaging of numbers is something that is done in his code as well.

bean: i had actually considered that. you know what, i think thats a good test of this system. I'll do that. and when it fails I'll claim that "this system doesn't work when your emotional state is compromised with greed" http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Leon
05-18-2008, 05:50 AM
The Quantis technique looks perfectly sound to me. Photons are emitted and detected one by one.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 12:32:27 AM GMT

vampyre
05-18-2008, 08:30 AM
how is it possible to detect, and send a single photon?
and if the mirror moves, even a TINY amount due to vibration, wont that cause interference.. ruining the result?
i.e. the distance of the half/mirror from the light source would make it so that more or less energy is needed for the photon to penetrate it? Do you have access to an internal schematic i can look at?

Leon
05-18-2008, 08:39 AM
They use a standard technique for generating single photons - a low-power laser and attenuator. They detect single photons with a silicon diode. They actually sell those items on their own. I don't see how vibration will have any effect. The retina in the human eye can detect a single photon, BTW.

There are better ways of generating single photons, like quantum dots, but they are still in the experimental stage.

If one can alter quantum events with the mind, I'd have thought that devices like the Quantis units would be much more susceptible than the REG-1. They obviously aren't.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 1:07:14 AM GMT

vampyre
05-18-2008, 10:07 AM
As for the human eye, thats not too surprising. Now if only we could harvest human eyes and interface them to digital cameras. That'd be awesome.

I had no idea we had single photon generation, thats really cool.

as for vibration, correct me if i'm wrong on this (which wouldn't suprise me)..
but, a photon will travel through .. or reflect off of glass depending on a lot of variables
first is the random quantum chance
then there is the energy in the photon, the angle of the glass in relation to the photon trajectory, and the color/density of the glass
at the point of impact.. right?

so if the mirrored glass isn't perfectly flat, and have perfectly uniform density... if there is vibration then the photon will hit the glass at a different point each time, as well as at a different angle.. right?

Leon
05-18-2008, 01:16 PM
I still don't see why that matters.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 5:21:13 AM GMT

vampyre
05-18-2008, 04:17 PM
because , if i understand it correctly, this device:

1. fires a photon
2. lets that photon bounce off of a silvered peice of glass that is 50% reflective
3. detects the photon with two detectors to see which way it went.

a photon bouncing off of a perfectly 50% reflective peice of glass at a 45 degree angle will produce a truly quantum random number because there is an exactly 50% chance that it will go one way or the other. but, if vibrations take place, or the device shooting the photons varies in strength even a little bit due to temperature giving the photon more or less energy, and if the device does not have a perfect vacuum... then were dealing with analog variables, not truly quantum ones... i.e. , your just as well off with Chip's Prop method, or for that matter, a well designed cascading diode circuit system for 2 bucks.

vampyre
05-18-2008, 04:38 PM
Ok, here's the end of this. I've used the device to predict the PICK-3 numbers for the missouri lottery on sunday, the mid-day drawing... which is only about what, 9 hours from now? if the numbers are right, it will be strong evidence that this works. of course, they wont be, but its kinda fun to try. if u wanna check up on the numbers yourself here's the web addy
http://www.molottery.com/pick3/pick3.jsp

The numbers my machine chose were 1-6-3
the chance of guessing correctly at random? 1 in 1000

PS. Don't sue me if these numbers lose or win http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Leon
05-18-2008, 08:28 PM
Photons aren't billiard balls, you are dealing with quantum events. They are also moving at light speed, how will relatively slow movement due to vibration affect whether they are reflected or not?

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 12:34:26 PM GMT

Graham Stabler
05-18-2008, 09:03 PM
I don't think it is a good idea to base something that is designed to give random results on something else that must function perfectly. It will really just measure the perfection of the partially reflecting mirror. Presumably that will be affected by alignment of the photon stream and hence could easily be under the influence of thermal or vibratory effects, not in the time frame of the experiment but between experiments.

Graham

Leon
05-18-2008, 09:17 PM
External events have no effect on quantum processes.

Quantis has a white paper explaining exactly how the system works.

Similar systems are widely used in such fields as cryptography research and lotteries. Quantis claims that their system has passed all the accepted tests for randomness, and no-one seems to have shown that they don't work as advertised.

Another company, MagiQ, makes something similar:

http://www.magiqtech.com/

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 4:42:51 PM GMT

Fabian Nunez
05-19-2008, 05:22 AM
@vampyre

You know, you could have just tossed a few coins after asking if each one is going to land heads or tails... no need to wait 9 hours for the results, and no danger of greed vibes contaminating the results :)

vampyre
05-19-2008, 06:56 AM
well it failed, which honestly is a relief. if it had worked it would have made me question everything i know. as for tossing coins, true, but i wanted something that everyone could verify, not just me.

I suppose for this to be completely debunked I need to find a way to determine if this device allows knowledge of facts in real time, rather than in the future. not sure how to do that in a scientifically provable way though.. i'll have to think on that for a bit

@leon: I don't doubt that the quantis device produces true random numbers. I simply doubt that its any more effective at doing this on a quantum level than a diode. Moreover our conversation seems to have come to an impasse, i think its best that we simply agree to disagree

Post Edited (vampyre) : 5/18/2008 11:04:12 PM GMT

hippy
05-19-2008, 09:13 AM
vampyre said...
well it failed, which honestly is a relief

But does it only fail for people who want it to fail, thus doing exactly what you really wanted http://forums.parallax.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

vampyre
05-19-2008, 03:23 PM
lol thanks now its gonna bug me till i try again. darn

anyone willing to help me test current/past evenents? i need someone to flip a coin. preferably two or three people. then, post letting me know you have flipped it but not telling me if its heads or tails. this way i can test if the device can detect the thoughts in the minds of others , not in the future.

Leon
05-19-2008, 04:03 PM
Won't show anything meaningful. You need something that can be subjected to statistical analysis.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Leon
05-19-2008, 05:07 PM
vampyre said...
well it failed, which honestly is a relief. if it had worked it would have made me question everything i know. as for tossing coins, true, but i wanted something that everyone could verify, not just me.

I suppose for this to be completely debunked I need to find a way to determine if this device allows knowledge of facts in real time, rather than in the future. not sure how to do that in a scientifically provable way though.. i'll have to think on that for a bit

@leon: I don't doubt that the quantis device produces true random numbers. I simply doubt that its any more effective at doing this on a quantum level than a diode. Moreover our conversation seems to have come to an impasse, i think its best that we simply agree to disagree

The main difference is that systems like the Quantis operate directly at the quantum level, which isn't the case when using noise from a diode or similar device, which can be affected by external influences.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

vampyre
05-19-2008, 06:43 PM
*sigh*... were simply not going to agree on this man, let it go.

Agent420
05-19-2008, 08:45 PM
OT...

Back in the day when random numbers were even harder to obtain, RAND's book, A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates was a standard reference work.· And it contained just that - 1,000,000 random digits ;)

It's been made public, so take a peek if you're interested...· The chapter describing the generation process is interesting.

http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418/

Not long after research began at RAND in 1946, the need arose for random numbers that could be used to solve problems of various kinds of experimental probability procedures. These applications, called Monte Carlo methods, required a large supply of random digits and normal deviates of high quality, and the tables presented here were produced to meet those requirements.This book was a product of RAND's pioneering work in computing, as well a testament to the patience and persistence of researchers in the early days of RAND. The tables of random numbers in this book have become a standard reference in engineering and econometrics textbooks and have been widely used in gaming and simulations that employ Monte Carlo trials. Still the largest published source of random digits and normal deviates, the work is routinely used by statisticians, physicists, polltakers, market analysts, lottery administrators, and quality control engineers. A 2001 article in the New York Times on the value of randomness featured the original edition of the book, published in 1955 by the Free Press. The rights have since reverted to RAND, and in this digital age, we thought it appropriate to reissue a new edition of the book in its original format, with a new foreword by Michael D. Rich, RAND's Executive Vice President

Computer Geek 101
05-19-2008, 09:05 PM
ok.... this is kinda funny. I just read this thread today(monday). My son and I were talking about random numbers and how hard they really are to get saturday during a long drive home. So was the conversation random or did we get influenced by this thread?

Leon
05-20-2008, 12:56 AM
When I was studying psychology many years ago, I usually used two pages of random numbers in my experiments, for assigning subjects randomly to groups, and so on. I used to hold a pencil, close my eyes, move my hand about and then stab it at the pages, to select my numbers. I always felt a bit silly doing it, but it was all we had. Pocket calculators weren't even available, then. Later on, when I had access to a real-time mainframe computer, I used that.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

vampyre
05-20-2008, 09:48 AM
@computer geek: my computer knew you were going to post that. hehe.

Computer Geek 101
05-20-2008, 08:27 PM

rjo_
05-21-2008, 10:53 AM
Dear Vamp,

I have two thoughts.

First: the Prop can show us the future, because the Prop is the future.

And B:

In general, the null hypothesis would be that there is always someone interested in remotely signaling an event about which they know but cannot speak. With this as our guiding hypothesis, we can suspect that anything promoted as either random or paranormal is open to well meaning distortions. This hypothesis can be used to explain all kinds of things... including remote viewing, the Princeton egg and global warming. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/story.html

How bad do things have to be before such communications might be common place... I don't know, but the occult seems to be holding its own and there are people who actually believe in global warming:)

(I would suggest using high quality electrodes and some good amplifiers, with the right programming, your Prop won't just read your brain... it will create a 3d map!!!:)

Rich

ILMP

vampyre
05-21-2008, 01:28 PM
hmm... in order to get good readings using electrodes I'd probably have to insert said electrodes INTO my brain... maybe someone else could volunteer for that.

so far though, this program has been able to read my thoughts and those of my friends and family with 100 percent accuracy, not that thats in any way scientifically significant. we've tested it scores of times so far. Maybe i'll actually put together a bit of a study and see what happens. Oddly though, i'm still sure its just a long running 'lucky streak'.

seriously though, mapping neural activity is an interesting topic, one of the many i'd like to explore someday. I'd like to design a device that can create a reference map of a users brain for automated placement of transcranial magnetic stimulation coil.

as for point A, amen. I've used quite a few MCU's and i can't even imagine going back to them now.

vampyre
05-22-2008, 08:23 PM
updated version with COLOR graphics in the first post

rjo_
05-25-2008, 07:21 AM
look at the work of Michael Persinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

He was able to reproduce many aspects of the alien abduction experience using three solenoids mounted on a football helmet. Of course, he had a pretty good idea of what he was doing... and he is a Canadian. Canadians get away with all kinds of stuff that would end the careers of American scientists:)

You have to be careful... seriously modulating magnetic fields introduces the potential for tissue disruption.

On the brain mapping front... we have lots of kids in our special olympics program who have never had brain mapping... because the technology is too expensive.

This would be a good place to apply your Propeller. If you get one electrode (skin electrode that is:) working, there are plenty of guys around here that will help you with the rest.

Rich

vampyre
05-25-2008, 06:44 PM
Yeah i've read something about that, something about how near death experiences and ufo abduction might be caused by EM fields affecting the temporal lobe. Its probably best not to mess with that part of the brain. That part of mine is screwed up anyway. I'll be experimenting with parts of my brain that don't matter so much, like the prefrontal cortex

lol, i just got a vision of a photo booth type thing, where you insert a dollar and have a chance to have a near death experience.

anyway, as far as brain mapping goes I think the propeller is particularly well suited to what I want to do. with all its cogs i could map some key areas of the skull to get sort of a triangulation fix. maybe using slow flashing lights or images to invoke certain repeatable brain functions the device can look for. I have no idea if that would even work, but as far as TCMS goes I think it would be really useful.

rjo_
05-26-2008, 12:05 AM
Yes. And I particularly like the kiosk idea...

EMFs are a good source of all kinds of deadly diseases... everything from diabetes to lukemia... but of course there is no proof:)

Measure all fields that you subject yourself to and keep careful records... exactly what killed you will be of interest to someone.

My favorite Russian scientist has large areas of prefrontal damage... looks rather like a void on brain mapping. This hasn't stopped him; he gets on very well without his prefrontal cortex. One of my favorite American scientists, who actually worked for me for a few months, was a test subject for rather high energy magnetophosphene research. She has occasional trouble spelling 5 letter words, doesn't pay her taxes and is quite combative... but she COULD see images directly transmitted into her head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_of_consciousness_and_spacetime... she is listed as the last reference.

In terms of applications, the sky is the limit... if you are still young. Nothing is going to change for a few years... during which period you can study the Russian patents, most of which are about to expire.

In Scandinavia, drug addiction is being treated with EMFs... and in Russia, eye trauma and inflammation are routinely and quite successfully treated with EMFs as a substitute for various pharmacologic agents.

The net effective energy actually required is equivalent to an AC uTesla field at about 100 Hz... anything more and you should be working for the military.

You need a mentor to keep you safe... choose a Canadian.

In the meantime... follow the yellow brick road to Propeller-based brain mapping. That way you have a diagnostic device with feedback potential and some kids that need brain mapping will get it.

Rich

vampyre
05-26-2008, 05:55 AM
Thanks for the advice and inspiration. It certainly sounds as if you've had a bit of experience on the topic. The TCMS designs i've come up with have lots of redundant safety systems and i've been through all the available documentation and safety information i could get my hands on multiple times. i may not have much more than a couple of years left anyway, so at this point my main concern is not so much safety as it is repeatably accurate placement of the coil. well, that and cost of production. i'd like the mapping system to be something people can afford, build and use with relative simplicity.

as for 'working for the military', some of the stuff they've got going on now , and what they must have that we don't know about, scares the socks right off me. Not so much that they have energy weapons and devices that can put audio directly into the brains of victims... but that the military is in control of them. that enough of that rant though :)

Sleazy - G
05-28-2008, 04:29 PM
·· Photon interaction with polished metal can be described similarly to semiconductor depletion and enhancement zones .· The interactions between pairs of harmonically linked electrons....

······· COOPER PAIRS,

···· ·produce models of·PHONON-ELECTRON and PHONON-PHONON interactions within the metallic electron gas cloud of such target.·

· A PHONON IS A PHOTONIC (QUANTUM)·VIBRATIONAL·ENERGY STORED IN THE COOPER PAIR'S SPHERICAL····
····· HARMONICS

·· YOU CAN SCATTER LIGHT ELASTICALLY (RALEIGH) or INELASTICALLY (RAMAN)·, producing some quite different results.

IN THE RAMAN MODE, AN IMPINGING PHOTON·CAN ACTUALLY BE TRANSFORMED INTO PHONONIC ENERGY

When a photon turns into a phonon when hitting a target through·raman scattering·you will actually see an increase in mass of the target, intermediately.· The photon "morphs" into a vibration

· SCINTILLATING· resin·with phototubes do a good job at interception of individual particles through just that same bandgap process that

···
·

rjo_
05-29-2008, 12:15 PM
vampyre...

Unfortunately, the best available information isn't in English... it is in Russian. The safety studies for eye treatment were done at the Helmholtz Eye Institute in Moscow...
You might want to check with them... it is amazing how much damage you can do with a relatively weak magnetic field if you modulate it wrong.

By the way... today I took my son to the dentist and there was a recent copy of Mechanics Illustrated... AND there was a nice article on using TCMS... for depression, which was reported in Canada about 10 years ago. Sounds like the only thing the company (referenced in the article) needs is FDA approval... and a plan for some good follow-up on how many people they kill.

My favorite Canadian expert is Frank Prato... http://www.uwo.ca/biophysics/lhri/principal_investigators/prato1.htm

He hosted a major therapeutics meeting several years ago. You might want to submit your design and see if he has any concerns. (Given the right chemical environment all you need to cause brain cancer is a down transformer.)

Sleazy,

You have stated the main argument for vibrations being the acoustic coupling mechanism for microwave hearing... problem is that when you do holographic interferometry... nothing seems to move.

I seem to remember one study in which the cochlea were excised and measurements of central auditory stimulation were still positive... but that was a long time ago.

Rich

rjo_
05-29-2008, 12:35 PM
Vampyre,

It won't do you any good to try to read the literature unless you know where to look... and even if you are smart enough to know where to look, you need an expert to help you to follow the right threads. None of the critical studies has ever been replicated and almost all of them do not contain full enough information to even try to replicate them.

This is an enormously important area. Our military has the best information... what stops them from just dumping it all into the public domain is the effect that the information would have... which given the current state of the world... would not be good.

There is a solution for this problem... but it would take about 20 years and no one has figured out how to do a proof of concept study.

Until then we are left wondering how long we can go until the lack of socially relevant information causes a catastrophic failure. When you see our military falling apart... we are getting close:)

In the meantime, please see what you can do to come up with the equivalent of a single electrode Prop-based EEG... and then publish the details here:)

Rich

vampyre
05-30-2008, 01:22 PM
I'm definitely working on a type of QEEG, thats the first step. I'm giving myself 6 months to finish that, and then another 3 to build the TCMS. If it all works, i might just live to see the next decade. If not, maybe i'll see some pretty colors. either way, i promise not to fry my cortex until i've built the QEEG :)

along those lines have you seen this thing?
not too sure how well it works but i love the design and the fact that it doesn't use any goop to connect the electrodes.
one of the things i'd like to have is a goop-free device. I'm thinking if i use a grid of 8x8 probes tightly spaced together, hooked up to a prop, i can filter out noise and amplify the signals i'm looking for without the need for gel.

Cephdon
05-31-2008, 01:39 PM
It occurs to me that predicting the future is not what happened. The test you made was to ask the program a question which you knew the answer to.
Possibly it was just telling you the answers you wanted to hear...

--CephDon

Leon
06-06-2008, 04:01 AM
I just got some prices for the Quantis units which generate random numbers using a quantum optics process. The OEM module is €289 and the USB unit is €599. Given that they incorporate a laser single photon source, half-silvered mirror, two single photon detectors and some electronics, they are good value for anyone needing true random numbers.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

rjo_
06-06-2008, 08:29 AM
I loved the link... one of the ways to support your development is to put it into a game and let people play with it.

If you are looking for something to keep you alive for a few more years... please allow me to point you in one more direction...

EEGs are band pass filtered to eliminate the ambient 60hz that permeates us at all times and in all places (except Europe)... then a final low pass filter ... to filter out everything above about 100 Hz... as I remember. It turns out that there is a lot of activity around 1Mhz and absolutely no instrumentation available to look at it. This type of sensing could also be non-contact. This signal is coming from a macromolecule, which subserves regulation in most active processes... To see the signal you would probably have to polarized it and synchronized with a magnetic field.

Growing yeast produces this signal... and it has been experimentally measured in the absence of a magnetic field.

Rich

The best way to survive is to become an expert about your own disease and then find a medical expert who agrees with you:)

vampyre
06-06-2008, 03:43 PM
i'm pretty much an expert on my disease and at this point there really isn't much hope other than the TCMS or a miracle treatment being discoverd. either that or lots of weed. I might go with the weed, but i dont like being drugged, and i dont really want to move anywhere that its legal. we'll see what happens with the QEEG and TCMS

1mhz? seriously? Odd. got any more info on that , like a link or something i can search for?

rjo_
06-06-2008, 10:41 PM
Never give up...

Once a disease is actually understood... it is by definition treatable. Sometimes you only need a single fact to take something from hopeless to cured.

The only disease that I know of that is being treated by weed and could in theory be treated by TCMS is ventricular hypertension... that condition is open to all kinds of intervention. If that is what you've got, cheer up, things are about to get better.

on the 1Mhz signal... I learned about it privately and I haven't seen anything directly published about it in human systems. But the same macromolecule is in yeast and you can do all kinds of interesting things to measure the signal in yeast and also use that frequency to directly affect yeast systems. When you see a macromolecule that hasn't changed much in evolution from yeast to man... you know that you are looking at a fairly important molecule:) AND who can question the politics of studying yeast?

When I learned that you could actually study this molecule in yeast... I was absolutely floored. Turns out that the literature is "budding" with all kinds of important info:)

If you google yeast and 1Mhz... you will come up with some false hits... but if you follow the literature far enough you can get some fairly interesting and germane informatioon.

Leon
06-08-2008, 11:58 PM
I've been looking into those anomalous results obtained in the·Global Conciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/proc_bottom.html); the methodology is seriously flawed. For instance, the data are not examined 'blind', but by someone who is expecting an effect, and who selects when the trial is to begin and end. The apparent effect resulting from the 9/11 attacks that was evident some four hours before the events disappears if the data are analysed starting earlier or later. Most damning, none of this research has been reported in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 6/8/2008 4:52:56 PM GMT

vampyre
06-09-2008, 09:37 AM
yeah i think i mentioned the flawed methodology in the first or second post. if not, i meant to

edit: looks like i neglected to mention that i thought it was completely bogus, but i'm pretty sure i did in the notes in the source file of that first release. I guess i just figured that most people would figure that out on their own.

Post Edited (vampyre) : 6/9/2008 1:42:51 AM GMT

Leon
06-09-2008, 01:52 PM
I've just thought of this counter-argument. If someone decides he wants more ones than zeros, and then examines the data and actually finds a run of more ones than zeros, perhaps a few hours before he made the decision, it's just the sort of thing one would expect from a random distribution. They seem to have convinced a lot of people that they are measuring a real effect, however.

I found a clip on YouTube where one of their 'scientists' claims that coin tossing can be influenced mentally!

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

vampyre
06-09-2008, 04:48 PM
perhaps it can. its one of those things where, you can't prove a negative. I could claim that santa lives in my pants. but since you'll never be able to look into my pants youll never be able to disprove it.

the lack of reproduced results isn't proof that its complete quackery. That being said though, there are places where events should have registered on their EGGS that didn't, and places where they registered days before or after. The real problem with their experiment is that there is no real criteria for "important events" , or a time frame in which it should register.

But again, that doesn't mean its wrong, it just means that if there is something to it, we haven't found it yet. The results i've gotten with the 8-ball are pretty wild as long as i'm using it to test for current or past events. at the very least, that suggests that there is some way for a human to predict the outcome of an analog random number generator.

Leon
06-09-2008, 05:32 PM
The standard scientific approach isn't the proving of·a theory, one attempts to disprove it. The problem with paranormal research is that no-one seems able to formulate a null hypothesis and test it properly.

How have you tested your hypothesis that you can influence the output of your RNG?

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

Post Edited (Leon) : 6/9/2008 10:05:33 AM GMT

vampyre
06-09-2008, 11:33 PM
Leon said...

...that you can influence the output of your RNG?

assumptions aren't good for science. I don't assume that i am influencing the RNG. Its possible that it is influencing me, or that a magic elf is communicating with my propeller through elf magic from the 8th lair of happy land. its also possible that i'm completely insane.

and as i note in the comments of the current version of the code, all my 'evidence' is anecdotal . That being said, I've had multiple family members and friends test the machine, and so far its been wrong once, and right more than 100 times. Its correctly identified winning scratch off tickets, relayed the outcome of coin flips and answer more general questions.

So i guess if you are really aching to do some hard core science, download the code, find a few volunteers who know how to meditate.

Leon
06-18-2008, 06:31 PM
I just got this reply from Psyleron about my suggestion that they try the Quantis RNG:

Hi Leon,

The short answer to your question is that "No," we have not done such a comparison; but this is largely because we operate under a working hypothesis that suggests that the effects are not noise-source dependent at the level you describe. Your question is common and makes sense from a traditional perspective, though, so it does warrant some explanation.

First, without going into too much detail, you may be want to look into the papers entitled "Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality" or "Change the Rules," which are both available at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear to get a sense of where the rest of this is coming from. In case that is too much reading, I will try to explain how our ideas about the topic differ from those which lead many people to suggest single photons, higher bit rates, parallel noise sources, different forms of shielding, and enhancements of that nature.

When most engineers and scientists who come from a traditional physics paradigm come upon our work, they tend to assume that we are postulating an effect whereby some element of the operator (e.g. "mind," brain, electromagnetic fields, etc.) interacts with some other object (e.g. a quantum noise source in an REG, photons, electrons, etc.) using a known or unknown force. Whether or not an effect itself exists may be an issue that is up in the air in this paradigm, but if there is one, the assumption that comes from this model is that it is a causal-mechanistic effect, and that one can enhance or tweak the effect by designing a physical system that best suits the underlying mechanism of the purported phenomena.

After many years of empirical findings and mixed experimental results, we (as well as researchers at PEAR and other organizations) have come to the conclusion that this is almost definitely not the case. Issues such as weak replicability, inconsistent effect sizes, and experimenter driven results seem to weigh against the idea that we are working with some kind of mechanistic physical force. Furthermore, in the data we find which does have an effect, we often find indications of consistent anomalous structure across experiments that use very different physical noise sources and processing methods.

For example, in experiment that uses different types of true random physical sources (thermal noise, quantum tunneling, or even cascading polystyrene balls) in very different contexts (controlling a robot, moving a graph on a screen, falling down a machine), we find what we refer to as "series position effects," correlations with operator subjective states, and other types of quantitative structure that do not emerge in the calibration data and would have no reason to exist across sources with different physics. In addition to this, "harsh" manipulations and processing of the true random bits prior to presenting it to the operator (provided the underlying probability distributions remain) seem to have no first order effect on our bottom line outcomes.

The net result of this is that we tend to think of the effect as having less to do with the exact physical nature of the systems in question, and more with the nature of some deeper element of the physical world itself. It is quite possible that the operators are not acting on the physical noise source itself in any conventional way, but are rather capable of somehow shaping the likelihood of realizing specific probabilistic outcomes in a way that defies conventional assumptions about reality.
This is a difficult for many people to consider; but philosophers of science, physicists, and philosophers, have, for a long time, acknowledged that there may exist phenomena that are not causal, mechanistic, and reducible and therefore may not even be able to be captured or explained using the prevailing scientific methodology. The phenomenon that we are seeing with the REG may very well be a case of such a type of effect, and our challenge is to try to come up with ways to better understand what is happening here.

More to the point … it would be very much to our benefit to find a physical process that can enhance the effect sizes or lead to more consistent results across a broader population. As such, if we found that single photon noise sources helped to enhance the effects, we would certainly be using them. Unfortunately, things just don't seem to be that simple!

Best,

John Valentino
Chief Executive Officer,
Psyleron, Inc.

It would appear that they only want to use their own hardware. They won't release their raw data to anyone outside the project. They even seem to have formulated their methodology to exclude proper scientific testing.

I've modified Chip's original software slightly, so that I can save random values on the PC. I can now·run my own statistical tests on the output.

Leon

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔