Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Predicting the future with the Prop. (update in first post) — Parallax Forums

Predicting the future with the Prop. (update in first post)

vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
edited 2008-06-18 18:07 in Propeller 1
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.

If your interested in this stuff google "Dr. Roger Nelson"

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
«1

Comments

  • danieldaniel Posts: 231
    edited 2008-05-17 12:57
    Your question intrigues me.

    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.
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,129
    edited 2008-05-17 12:57
    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



    Post Edited (Bean (Hitt Consulting)) : 5/17/2008 3:07:06 PM GMT
  • simonlsimonl Posts: 866
    edited 2008-05-17 13:50
    LOL Bean smile.gif

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Cheers,

    Simon
    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 smile.gif
  • hippyhippy Posts: 1,981
    edited 2008-05-17 14:48
    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 [noparse]:)[/noparse] ).

    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 [noparse]:)[/noparse]
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-17 16:02
    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




    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

    Post Edited (Leon) : 5/17/2008 4:07:26 PM GMT
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-17 21:20
    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" smile.gif
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-17 21:50
    The Quantis technique looks perfectly sound to me. Photons are emitted and detected one by one.


    Leon

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

    Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 12:32:27 AM GMT
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-18 00:30
    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-18 00:39
    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

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

    Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 1:07:14 AM GMT
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-18 02:07
    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-18 05:16
    I still don't see why that matters.

    Leon

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

    Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 5:21:13 AM GMT
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-18 08:17
    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.
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-18 08:38
    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 tongue.gif
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-18 12:28
    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

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

    Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 12:34:26 PM GMT
  • Graham StablerGraham Stabler Posts: 2,510
    edited 2008-05-18 13:03
    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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-18 13:17
    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

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle

    Post Edited (Leon) : 5/18/2008 4:42:51 PM GMT
  • Fabian NunezFabian Nunez Posts: 29
    edited 2008-05-18 21:22
    @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 [noparse]:)[/noparse]
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-18 22:56
    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
  • hippyhippy Posts: 1,981
    edited 2008-05-19 01:13
    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 smile.gif
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-19 07:23
    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-19 08:03
    Won't show anything meaningful. You need something that can be subjected to statistical analysis.

    Leon

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-19 09:07
    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

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-19 10:43
    *sigh*... were simply not going to agree on this man, let it go.
  • Agent420Agent420 Posts: 439
    edited 2008-05-19 12:45
    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 [noparse];)[/noparse]

    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 101Computer Geek 101 Posts: 179
    edited 2008-05-19 13:05
    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 7,620
    edited 2008-05-19 16:56
    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

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
    Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-20 01:48
    @computer geek: my computer knew you were going to post that. hehe.
  • Computer Geek 101Computer Geek 101 Posts: 179
    edited 2008-05-20 12:27
    aaahhhhh....get out of my head!!!!!
  • rjo_rjo_ Posts: 1,825
    edited 2008-05-21 02:53
    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[noparse]:)[/noparse]

    The question I have is: can your PROP read your brain?... give it a try.
    (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!!![noparse]:)[/noparse]


    Rich

    ILMP
  • vampyrevampyre Posts: 146
    edited 2008-05-21 05:28
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.