Random Number Generator That Sees Into the Future 1216
hackajar writes "Red Nova news has an interesting article about a random number generating black box that may be able to see into the future. From the article: "according to a growing band of top scientists, this box has quite extraordinary powers. It is, they claim, the 'eye' of a machine that appears capable of peering into the future and predicting major world events"."
Mysterious Future (Score:5, Funny)
Then maybe it can help me to win a few more Rock Paper Scissors [iclod.com] games too.
Re:Mysterious Future (Score:4, Interesting)
Greater possibilities. (Score:5, Funny)
OK, 65 eggs, so we'll use the extra one as a parity bit. Everyone concentrate on the following binary number really really hard:
1010011 1101100 1100001 1110011 1101000 1000100 1101111 1110100 1
Re:Mysterious Future (Score:4, Insightful)
You suggest that RF waves change after the event has happened. The story claims that RF waves change even before the event has happened. Which is a different story.
Skeptical Questions (Score:4, Informative)
When pressed about evidence working against his theories (e.g. assigning meaning to some data spies, but not others), global conciousness proponent Dan Radin replied: "I don't know what happened there."
This is the scientific thing to say -- if you don't know, say you don't know.
However, assigning meaning to some spikes, but not others, tends to erode one's confidence in the assignment of causality.
See Skeptic Report [skepticreport.com] for critical analysis.
-kgj
Re:Mysterious Future (Score:5, Funny)
Needless to say.... (Score:5, Funny)
Omigod..... I'm PSYCHIC!!!!
I think I'll just go to sleep now ... before I get more tired.
[skeptical] Seismic, electronic disturbances? (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that since they describe RNG's as "black boxes", they are using hardware RNG's, which use the fluctuations derived from an apparently random 'natural' process, like electric (resistor noise, by far the most common) and radioactive decay.
But I find it interesting and ironic that each of the events they have talked about predicting in many cases have associated electrical phenomenon!
They even mentioned it in the article. A billion people watching Princess Di's funeral, or 9/11 -- ok, so a billion tv sets around the world turn on, and if your RNG is plugged into the wall . . . is it going to affect it? I dunno, but if it's a resistor-based RNG . . . the OJ Simpson trial, ditto. People are gonna start tuning in before the verdict; this produces, at the very least, an ELECTRICAL EVENT that is likely detectable anywhere on the power grid.
With showing the person slides of pictures, and the random number fluctuations happening prior to the person seeing the picture . . . um . . . is there any electrical machinery plugged into the wall that takes an action to ready/display the next slide? Wouldn't that be funny, now . .
And, of course, a tsunami produces measurable electrical phenomena as well. I don't know if it produces electrical phenomena in advance, of course, and it would seem that if that was the case we would be able to use it to predict seismic events
I don't know anything about whether fluctuations in resistor/semiconductor-based RNG's can happen as a result of electrical phenomenon, but I think that the fact that the article makes no mention of attempts to screen for electrical interference, to detect correlating electrical/field events, or to isolate the RNG's in some way is a good indicator that these guys aren't trying very hard to play devil's advocate.
This is old news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alot of certain folks (Score:4, Insightful)
It is I think a paranormal defense mechanism employed to prevent bloodshed.
Indeed - many will wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Indeed - many will wonder (Score:4, Informative)
There is another very bizarre phenomenon being studied at Princeton that is related and apparently shares a lot of the same hardware. The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research [princeton.edu] project was started to study the human machine interface, and quickly determined that humans, individually and collectively, can have a small influence on truly random events. The effect doesn't extend to pseudorandom events such as a PC's "random" number generator, which is actually deterministic. The magnitude of the effect varies with the individual(s) involved, but is on the order of one in ten thousand. However, this small result is statistically proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The experiments have been widely replicated by different researchers using different random events (Johnson noise in resistors, balls falling through a long sequence of pegs ala pachinko, etc.) Even more bizarre is the way the effect is not limited by time or space. People from the other side of the world have influenced random events, and if my memory is correct, random events in sealed experiments have been altered by human efforts in the future and the past.
I think this seems to be too widespread to be a hoax. There is apparently too much independent verification to dismiss it, regardless of how little correlation it has with our belief about how the universe works. The effect may be small, but any significantly valid effect is a huge step in advancing our understanding of the universe and consciousness. I think we'll need a better understanding of quantum physics to fully appreciate what is really happening. My personal favorite crackpot theory is that our brains operate at different levels, all the way down to quantum effects at the lowest levels.
It's probably too early to use this effect in any meaningful engineering devices, but I can't help myself. I want to buy some commercial time on a TV station that is broadcast at the same time as the live lotto drawing that's broadcast on a competing station. Then, I'd run a commercial that flashes "LOTTO" and a sequencial string of my lottery numbers, in high contrast, with each appearing for a tenth of a second. It'd look weird enough that people would watch to see what the heck it is, and the 100 ms strobing numbers would feed straight into their subconscious minds. Maybe I'd take a tip from subliminal advertisers and mix in words like "DEATH" or "SEX", or graphic images, to pump up the emotional level.
Looks like trouble... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Looks like trouble... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Looks like trouble... (Score:4, Funny)
Is it really random? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it really random? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think it's a bunch of hooey.
Something like activity right before a tsunami could possibly be explained by something we don't understand, but which is a viable scientifically-provable process like some kind of microtremors in the planet's crust or something of that sort.
"Knowing" that 19 guys are going to hijack planes, however, isn't really something that should make "random" number generators generate sequences any differently.
Re:Is it really random? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, like you, I think it's hooey too.
If they want to convince me, then they need to start making concrete predictions (e.g. "there will be an earthquake at X on hh:mm dd:mn:yy"). They also need to start coming up with falsifiable hypotheses to explain the devices' behaviour and start testing those hypotheses.
Re:Is it really random? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it really random? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it really random? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it really random? (Score:3, Interesting)
I predict! (Score:3, Funny)
No?
Re:I predict! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I predict! (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this under science? (Score:4, Insightful)
A series of bernoulli events with probability of success 0.5 will FREQUENTLY be on either the positive or negative side of "even". Unusual "spikes" are EXPECTED to happen.
Now comes the phenomenon of "selective inclusion". If no spike happens and a major world event occurs, nobody notices. If a spike happens a major world event occurs, suddenly this is "proof".
Now comes the phenomenon of "distortion of temporal significance". If a spike happens an hour before a major world event, it's noted as having been predicted. If a spike happens four hours before a major world event, it's noted. If a spike happens a day before an event, it's noted with the same significance.
So what's the expected frequency of "spikes" and what's the frequency of "major world events", and how long before an event is a "spike" considered significant?
Add it all up and you'll find that just by chance, this machine is EXPECTED to have major spikes before world events.
Re:Why is this under science? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why is this under science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the people involved in the project are already aware of this;
From their FAQ:
How do you make the leap that the deviations from randomness are related to world events or consciousness? After all, when you find a deviation you can check the news and ALWAYS find some world event that is taking place, because world events happen every day. There are never days without world events anymore, so it seems that there is a possibility that this is just a coincidence.
The leap we make is only to ask the question. The answer seems to be yes, there are correlations. With regard to your concern that we can always find a special event to fit the data, we fully agree. However, we do our experimental work the other way around from what you have inferred. First we make a prediction that some identified event will have an effect, then we assess the data to see the actual outcome. Though some people suggest that we should do so, we never "find a deviation [and then] check the news", because you are right -- it will always be possible to find some event that we might imagine was the cause. The GCP methodology is prediction-based. Before the data are examined, a prediction is registered, with all necessary analysis specifications, and only then do we perform the analysis that allows us to quantify the correlation and assign it a probability against chance.
Re:Why is this under science? (Score:5, Insightful)
The September 11 graphs suggest a precursor effect, as has been seen in a few prior cases. Could this be used as a warning?
The best guess is we cannot use the EGG data for such practical applications. One major reason is the statistical nature of our measures. Nobody has yet come up with anything more direct, and this means that there will be, by definition, both false positives and negatives. Moreover, the effect size is so tiny that we almost always require repeated measures, or measures over a long time to detect any anomalies. To see precursors we have to look back across that time from a post facto perspective. Unique point events have little chance of being seen, at least by our current methods.
In other words, they look at the data after something has happened searching for a "spike" that will almost certainly be there.
Re: Why is this under science? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "significance" of the result critically depends on where you put your t=0 in the data stream. So go back and look at the other two plots, for the papal visit and the New Year's celebration. What if you used t=3 for your zero point on the New Year's analysis?> In other words, they look at the data after something has happened searching for a "spike" that will almost certainly be there.
To give an illustration of one aspect of the problem you mention:
At the EGG Story page [princeton.edu], scroll down and look at the plots labeled "Cumulative Deviation (Random Walk)", "New Years, 1998", "Pope in Holy Land". In these plots the smooth curve represents the 95% confidence bound on how far the deviation can be expected to go by pure chance. (I'm assuming their calculations are correct.)
Notice that in all cases the curve and the data plot both start at t=0, y=0, which I will call the "zero point" for the plot. Now consider the effect of the specific choice of t=0. Look at the first plot mentioned above, the "Cumulative Deviation (Random Walk)" plot, and notice that the data drops down to y=0 just a bit before t=300. Suppose you scrolled the data leftward until your zero point was at that point just before t=300; I pick this point because it has the same y as the original zero point, so nothing changes on the y axis: the boundary curve doesn't change at all, but the data is shifted leftward.
Hey! This random walk now has a sudden upward trend at t=0 (formerly t=~300), and the deviation rides above the boundary line for about 100 time steps. But wait - there's more! We can do the same think if we pick the plot's original t=700 or so, though with a slightly less impressive jump above the boundary line. Or we can get a really nice peak if we move our zero point to t=600 or so, and re-zero the data on the y axis so that the new zero point has x=0, y=0.
Re the papal visit, you might think the Pope's schedule [ewtn.com] pins down the time of interest so that we don't have any option on where to place the zero point. Well, be that as it may, whoever generated the plot did cherrypick the zero point. The schedule linked right above shows that it was actually a seven day trip; they didn't count the day the Pope left Italy and started his visit to Jordan. But what would the plot look like if they had started 24 hours earlier? (Not a rhetorical question: we don't have the data.) What's the "right" time to pick for this plot's zero point? When the Pope left Italy? When he arrived in Jordan? When he arrived in Israel? When the media coverage ramped up? Should it start a a particular how of the day? What time zone?
This is data cherrypicking of the crassest sort. The 75 scientists should be ashamed of themselves.
Re:Why is this under science? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, commercial/academic grade RNG are nice devices, but what happens when the world's communication infrastructures cry out in "Something has happened?" How does this affect even so-called shielded devices. How can this affect non-shielded computer components that aren't designed to be shielded from this. How does this affect AC levels coming from the socket in the wall.
Regardless, skepdic has a nice write-up about PEAR here: http://skepdic.com/pear.html
What gets me is that how so much of the fringe is trying very hard to make humans the center of the universe again. Once we were creatures made by gods, but Darwin proved otherwise. Once the Earth was the center of the universe, but Copernicus proved otherwise. Now, we have the New Age/Religious backlash to these discoveries coming from all over the place as man demands to be petulant child who is the most important thing in the universe, to the point of "psychicly" predicting major media events.
Also, I take issue with the fact that there are events that are marginalized or dont get press in the US, but affect a good part of the world. Where are all the spikes for underreported stories or stories that don't get to westerners?
From the global consciousness FAQ at princeton:Oh, how handy! So if you get a spike you can ask "Where there any major concerts this weekend?" There are always major concerts or some cultural ritual that weekend, or that day, or that hour, depending on how well you want to fish out the event.
I remember reading about PEAR years ago, and thought it was interesting, but man, they've been doing this for years and the best they can show are their data which barely goes above chance and a hypothesis that borders on something Aquanis would have written about? These guys have had all the time in the world to predict a great many things, but dont seem to be able to do anything but cherry-pick events to fit their data, not to mention I'm very concerned about how commercial grade RNGs plugged into unshielded computers handle themselves when cell phones, comm sats, TVs, etc start going off.
I once asked Roger Nelson to be part of this research because he was asking for "eggs." He didnt need another machine in Chicago but told me he might in the future. Nothing came out of it. Eggs are just a computer with a RNG attached and PEAR's software running. The rest of my machine is pretty unshielded and if an event happens where lots more electromagnetic radiation surrounds it, it may very well affect it. Maybe not the RNG itself, but the cable to the PC or the interface or something in the PC could go off-kilter thus producing that 1% over chance they brag about. So, if this is how they run things, using volunteers with any old computer, well, its something to consider. Note: they do send you an external RNG, they dont use the one in your computer. I believe they use the parallel interface.
Put these "eggs" 2 miles underground, do some double-blind samples with major events listed by date and time THEN pull your data and see if matches up. A third party should make the "event" list and princeton should do the stats work. Something tells me if you pulled this trick off, that little 1% or so might just disappear in a puff of good experiment design. Commodity computers above ground aren't exactly the most objective devices in the world.
Re:Why is this under science? (Score:4, Insightful)
42 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:42 (Score:3, Funny)
hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Put up or shut up... (The Randi prize) (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt they'll be collecting it.
Pat Niemeyer
Re:Put up or shut up... (The Randi prize) (Score:5, Insightful)
Really smart people have been fooled before by turning the scientific method on its head and looking for causes that fit selected outcomes... Unless you can make a prediction before something happens you really don't have much to talk about.
Pat
Re:Put up or shut up... (The Randi prize) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Put up or shut up... (The Randi prize) (Score:3, Insightful)
Pat
4-1-2005 (Score:3, Funny)
I predict... (Score:5, Funny)
Regards,
Karnak the Magnificent
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Global Consciousness Project (Score:4, Funny)
PT Barnum observed "There's one born every minute." Clearly an under-estimate, since his field of observation was obscured by dense n00bs, but he was not actually wrong.
heh (Score:5, Funny)
White noise (Score:4, Interesting)
In some ways this makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that would be interesting to see is if location affects these Eggs. The article mentioned the Eggs notice global events. I wonder if you put an Egg in a small town whether or not it would detect something like a murder or a natural disaster local to the town. Might be something for these guys to try.
Fascinating live view (Score:5, Funny)
So not only is it a website that predicts the future, it's a website that goes 'ping' that predicts the future. what more could a geek want?
Re:Fascinating live view (Score:3, Funny)
a shrubbery?
Margins of Reality (Score:5, Interesting)
From that I found multiple pointers to a book, Margins of Reality, by Jahn and Dunne. It details research done at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab. They basically run millions of RNG trials with people trying to influence the result, and they get pretty much statistically provable effects, but at a very low level (something like a 5 parts per 10,000 deviation from the norm.) What's freaky is it's so consistent they've gotten to the point that they can tell you which test subject is influencing things by the results. Very freaky stuff.
Anyway, even if you're a die-hard prove-it-to-me science buff, the research results described in the book will really make you ponder how well we understand things, particularly RNGs and rigorous test procedures, if nothing else.
Re:Margins of Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Technical analysis is the same. 250 people go to a seminar, half of them decide to get an account, buy books and software and start trading on FOREX or commodity markets. After a year 64 of them are still in the black. After two years 30 of them have profits for two years. After six years there probably will still be 2 guys, with BMWs, Rolexes and stuff. Wait one more year - one of them will lose anything, but the lucky one will decide to give seminars on technical analysis or write 100$ books on trading.
Those guys in Princeton are idiots. They are wasting their time and university's money. Their claims are ridiculous and they deserve to be fired and sent to work in the trash sorting plant. That way we can put their skills in finding valuable stuff in random shit to good use.
Re:Margins of Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
5 parts in 10000 is nothing. The probability theory guarantees that there are many experiements where such results are randomly produced.
It is not the scale of the deviation but its repeatability that counts here.
In other words if conscious concentration affects a random number generator then by how much the results differ could be viewed as the force of the effect. However, if the deviations repeatedly occur while a test subject concentrates on the generator but don't occur when no one does then that is a valid observation despite the effect observed being weak.
WEAK CORRELATION (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse, the correlation suggests the causation post-facto. Nobody even guesses there will be a correlation until there's an effect. And if there's no effect, nobody discounts the box's output.
Sad. Innumerate. Stupid.
Since when does slashdot==weekly world news? (Score:3, Insightful)
women's breasts (Score:5, Funny)
The box was built in the 70's (Score:3, Insightful)
If we had an infinite number of these... (Score:3, Funny)
You'd probably get the entire contents of Usenet too for free.
Cheers
Stor
reminds me of something I saw in college (Score:3, Interesting)
At the end of the paper I wrote, I had a disturbing flash of honesty and commented that, while I had successfully drawn connections between every movment and some event, I had no faith in my explanations. The world is too big and the connections between any event and my stocks was so tenuous, that I suspected random chance. Moreover, because there were so many events in the world on any given day -- some positive and some negative -- that one could always find something that moved the data "the right way".
This project sounds awfully similar to me.
BTW, the prof noted my reservations and commented (paraphrased) "That's what you were intended to learn from this exercise all along."
Jewish telegram (Score:5, Funny)
They read "start worrying, details to follow."
Are those REALLY random number generators? (Score:4, Informative)
For those of you that have not spent some time reading Knuth's Vol.2, there is an extensive analysis of what "randomness" is and how to get it. Clearly, a deterministic machine (=chip) cannot produce really random sequences. I did not bother to check the actual working details of those machines, but I would say that the only truly random phenomena are quantum phenomena and only these would be acceptable in a serious scientific study. Sure, modern chips get away by generating random-like sequences that are good enough to simulate true randomness for most purposes. This applies to HW random generators in most PCs. However, they are not, in principle, acceptable as real random number generators (even if they are equally well suited for applications).
From a theoretical standpoint a truly random quantum system is immune to interference, while HW random number generators use an external (to the system) source of randomness, accepted to represent noise. This is the actual approach used in the kernel's /dev/random that draws data from various external events. It has been shown, under some circumstances to be less than reliable, because the event is external wrt to the kernel but still inside our frame of reference (e.g. we control the keyboard and the ethernet port and, potentially, the power fluctuations etc etc).
Another significant point to consider is this: a truly random sequence is by definition infinite and it contains all possible subsequences of finite length. In an infinite series of coin tosses we MUST get all finitely long sequences of heads-only or tails-only. This means that given a long enough random subsequence (like the one that is produced by this machine), we will always be able to choose parts of it that are highly unlikely and statistically significantly different. Given that (a) every day something "important" happens somewhere and (b) we can always choose non-random "looking" parts of the sequence the credibility of this experiment is quite doubtful.
A proper experimental design would not associate (chosen!) events with (chosen!) subsequences, but would instead prove that the source itself is systematically non-random due to an unknown cause of interference. When all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce traditional sources of interference, we would be open to creative speculation about its source.
Another way to approach this is to make "a priori" (very important!) choices of "trigger" events and then assign very specific, "a priori" defined, time limits to the analysis. E.g. violent death of more than 1000 people in less than 1 hour is accepted as a trigger and we only correlate this to a contiguous 2h of data surrounding and including the event. The prior choice of experimental trigger conditions and rules makes a world of difference to the reliability of the test.
P.
Re:I saw this a while ago (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not.
Red Nova appears to be a valid news site, and the Princeton University link at the bottom is the real thing, describing just what the article talked about.
You know, we all like to laugh at so called "psychic phenomena" or pseudoscience. I know, I do it too. But this is rather stunning...it's a Princeton University project, run by a group of scientists who respect the scientific method, who are trying to do their best at sounding humble while making extraordinary claims. The only question is if they actually have the data to back it up (some graphs would be nice).
Progress in science means shattering accepted theories. If this is what it seems to be, then the possibility of a scientific revolution, at the very least a whole new field of science, seems to be at hand.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Interesting)
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance"
-Robert R. Coveyou, Oak Bridge National Laboratory
Evidence of simulation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like detailed instructions on how to construct a stream of random numbers with behaviors that correlate to outside events as they describe, so that I can repeat their experiments myself and see if I can reproduce the same effect. Tabletop reproduction isn't always possible in science (e.g. historical sciences like archaeology, paleontology, cosmology- remember that, you creationists) but in this case reproduction of results should be easy. (If this were real.)
At the very least I want to know how to generate a stream of random numbers that reproduces this effect, how to recognize a prediction when it arrives in the stream, and how to assign a P-value for associations between random stream events and real world events. Unless we move past the sort of ex post facto "predictions" of past events, there is nothing new here. It looks like a repetition of work already done by Nostradamus.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:3, Interesting)
The point of science is to attempt to understand the universe that we inhabit. If there's some correlation between otherwise random events and specific events that can be reliably demonstrated then we'll have some piece of the universe newly discovered
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this is incorrect. There exists an infinite variety of streams of random numbers, and not all of them have the same properties, nor are they of the same quality, nor would all random number sources normally be expected to react to outside events (like someone coming to the lab and "concentrating") in the same way. Random numbers can be gotten from a radioactive source (which might be one of thousands of different isotopes), rolling dice, unstable electronic circuits, dripping faucets, the weather, etc. All can map cleanly to a given range and can usually pass all tests used to determine whether or not a sequence is truly random. The pseudorandom numbers that are commonly used in computing (for example) are generated by linear congruential methods and they fail these tests; k-tuples of these numbers form a lattice structure when you plot them in k-dimensional space. If any stream of truly random numbers will work, then any of these sources can be used to predict the future!
Now granted, this is all solidly in the realm of nonsense, so this discussion is already a bit esoteric. But if you seriously think that these guys are right and that outside events are reflected in their random number streams, then the question arises, is there a connection between these human-world events and the random number generator they're using, or is the connection between those events and the random numbers themselves- just by virtue of their randomness?
I say it's between outside events and the particular generator being used, because that (although wildly implausible) is the weaker of these two claims- which are both whoppers. If the prediction comes from the numbers themselves, then the claim being made here is a much, much stronger claim- that any random process is somehow connected to major events in the human world. Now that's the sort of magic I stopped believing in by the time I was 4. (I don't buy the weaker claim either, but I have to acknowledge that it has an infinitely greater chance of being true than the stronger claim.)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:3, Informative)
Probably lots. Their numbers are apparently downloadable, but you can always derive ex post facto "predictions" from random crap.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Atoms (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen any convincing data, the people running this project pick and choose 'world' events as they decide it.
For example: [skepticreport.com]
"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."
And if upward curves start before the 'world' event taking place? It's collective pre-cognition folks! And how much before the event counts as pre-cognition? As much (or as little) as these 'experimeters' require.
Look, even the director of the project himself says: "...this idea is really an aesthetic speculation. I don't think we have real grounds to claim that the statistics and graphs representing the data prove the existence of a global consciousness. On the other hand, we do have strong evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data..."
That's the real telling point: "...should be random data...". I bet some in-depth tests might show the 'eggs' are simply not entirely random.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:3, Informative)
Say they have a random sequence r_1, r_2, r_3... which has subsequences {s_1}, {s_2}, {s_3}, {s_4} (mapping to portions of the r sequence) that are determined to be predictive of human-world events H_1, H_2, H_3...
I can then construct a modified sequence (call it "t", i.e. t_1, t_2, t_3...) where all the sequences have been removed (or have been exchanged by chunks of the r sequence that are way further down
don't get too excited about Princeton (Score:5, Informative)
Top scientists believe ... (Score:5, Informative)
Source: Daily Mail; London (UK)
It may be that Red Nova is a valid news site, but they should really check the status of their sources. The Mail will run just about any sensational piece of b*ll*cks doing the rounds. They are not the sort of organ that would want to cloud the reader's faith in the paranormal with any of that cynical questioning. Please insert the phrase 'Top scientists believe
Click here [dailymail.co.uk] and search for "Crop Circles", "MI6" or "UFO".
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Informative)
Here's [skepticreport.com] what the Skeptic Report has to say about the "Global Consciousness Project".
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Informative)
Because it's pseudo-science that's trying to be serious. Which can be a dangerous thing, although probably isn't in this case.
I stopped reading when I read this:
"The laws of chance dictate that the generators should churn out equal numbers of ones and zeros - which would be represented by a nearly flat line on the graph."
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite. If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other. Over time, the percentage disparity will decrease to near zero, but the total numerical disparity is likely to increase.
Similarly and extending from that, there is no law of anything that says that if you have a long series of 1's that it's more likely that your next number will be a 0. The "law of averages" is commonly cited here but there's really no such law.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a nice little article that explains this, though I highly recommend the book Innumeracy for a lot more detail and an entertaining read to boot (that's a straight Amazon link, not a referral - I don't care where you buy it, just read it.)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Funny)
I can see into the future. You will get a 5, Informative for making this obvious mathematical observation.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite. If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other. Over time, the percen
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean a scientist is quoted as saying "Our data shows clearly that the chances of getting these results by fluke are one million to one against." I would actually place the chance much much lower, I mean a million to one is nothing really. The odds of 30 coin flips in any order is a million to one. The real problem is prediction. The question is whether the model can predict into the future what events will cause blips and the magnitude of the event.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Nova usually has good articles, but every once in awhile, one shows up that belies evidence of lack of scientific rigour. This is the case here.
An example (from the article:)
It was a preposterous idea at the time. The results, however, were stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained.
This sentence is prejudicial because it biases the results as being "stunning", without describing who finds the results stunning.
"Never satisfactorily explained" also presumes that someone finds it worthy of needing explanation.
Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could influence the machine and produce significant fluctuations on the graph, 'forcing it' to produce unequal numbers of 'heads' or 'tails'.
"Proved"? Pretty strong words with no supporting detail. Once I read sentences like this, I discount an article as being scientifically unfounded.
In response to the parent post:
No, the laws of chance do not say any such thing. In fact, the laws of chance say exactly the opposite.
I believe you're misinterpreting the laws of chance.
If you have two choices chosen at random over a series (a 1 and a 0; or heads and tails on a coin), there is a high probability that one of the choices will be chosen a significantly higher number of times than the other.
Significant as a percentage? Unlikely.
Over time, the percentage disparity will decrease to near zero, but the total numerical disparity is likely to increase.
This is a trivial statement. If n flips has m total disparities, n+x flips will have between m and m+x disparities. It is therefore impossible for the total number of disparities to decrease, and almost guaranteed that it will increase.
The only significant measure of disparity is that of percentile disparity. And if you measure percentile disparity on a scale equivalent to the number of events being measured, it will in fact appear to be a nearly flat line on the graph.
The thing that bothers me about this "experiment" is that it presumes to assert that people can control a machine that generates random events, without describing the algorithm by which those random events are produced. Trying to simulate true randomness (indeed, what is random?) is a huge topic within math, statistics, and computer science; yet, it's not mentioned once within the article.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Funny)
"The thing that bothers me about this "experiment" is that it presumes to assert that people can control a machine that generates random events, without describing the algorithm by which those random events are produced..."
I believe their algorithm for producing random numbers was sound - it was based on completely unpredictable world events of extreme importance. Oh, wait...
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:5, Insightful)
The article may very well be about pseudo-science. However trying to counter it with pseudo-reasoning and confusing distinct, well-defined statistical properties doesn't advance the cause of science. In fact it looks not only bad but desperate.
My professor in statisitics would probably have pitched an eraser at you for suggesting what amounts to an oxymoronic "high probability of the improbable." If the probability is 1:1,000,000, then in one million experiments there is a finite probability (1:1,000,000) that you may see the event once, and a lesser finite probability you would see it more than once. If something improbable turns up "significantly" as you phrase it then you check to see if the dice are honest.
In fact, the mean value of a normally distributed series of random numbers should trend toward a constant value. In the case of runs of 0s and 1s, it should trend toward 0.5 and approximate it more closely as the experiment runs.
The variance should tend to increase as less probable values fill the wings of the bell curve. The longer the series of random values the more nearly normal that trend should be and the greater the potential variance may be, since with a longer experiment you can actually acquire less probable runs that simply could not occur earlier. For instance you need to toss a coin a minimum of 20 times to have even the possibility of achieving 1:1,000,000 odds (1:1048576, actually 2^20). You would need to toss a good many more times than that before you could legitmately begin to worry of a 1:1,000,000 occurence did not show up.
That's how Los Vegas makes a living. The rubes always hope that the improbable will kiss them on the neck. In fact nothing you say actually contradicts the quote you are trying to criticize. They are discussing the mean results while you are talking about the variance.
The simplest explanation for their "correlation" is simply coincidence of highly improbable runs temporarily skewed the data. Remember that the experiment has been running for years so some really improbable runs are possible. They need a lot more disasters before they can actually test an argument based on a statistical improbability.
Re:Random number machines predicting the future eh (Score:3, Interesting)
The response to images makes sense - people would learn a response. If they really want to show the something significant, they'd have to show that people can either anticipate a correct strong response all of the time (by also showing images that would invoke no response), or show that they would invoke a strong response the first time after a series of no-responses.
The other part doesn't jive, though. The theory that this group of devices predicts disasters does no
Re:_ right..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:_ right..... (Score:3, Funny)
1. Throw away macaroni
2. Replace artificial cheese flavored goo with mozarella
3. Shoot Rick Berman from a cannon
4. Pizza!
Re:Superstitious Crackery (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you've heard of the scientific method?
It sounds like quakery, but so did flight and travel to the moon 150 years ago.
The appropriate stance is "I'll believe it when they prove it", not "that can't be true." Rabid atheism is no more scientific than wicca.
Re:Superstitious Crackery (Score:3, Insightful)
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.
A few people are doing some junk science...
Or global human consciousness is affecting random number generators in a measurable way, before events actually occur.
You tell me.
The grand-parent is correct - chosing to believe in quakery has serious ramifications. I will doubt it, until it is plain to my face. Why do you believe it, before it has been shown to your face?
And actually
Re:Superstitious Crackery (Score:4, Insightful)
I can always tell we've not evolved as a species and are still thinking at the baboon level when I hear comments like this.
Flight was not regarded as quakery by those who understood some simple science. It was regarded as quakery by the lay person who doesn't understand much of anything. It was obvious that if birds could fly then there must have been some method by which we could construct a machine to also do so. Birds don't fly by some strange unseen spiritual energy that we'll never figure out. No, flight was merely an engineering problem as are most all other things that science has "figured out". In the real world, if you can solve it, using logic and deductive reasoning, then you can do it. It will take work, in the form of many hours of labor and thought, something the common idiot seems not inclined to do, but can lead us places that we've never been before. It still amazes me to this day that many pseudo science freaks don't understand what energy is. They speak of this thing or that thing as having energy but are completely oblivious to the fact that energy is a "difference" between to opposites. They can't seem to name what those opposites are when they say something like "she seems to have much spiritual energy". You might as well say the sky is blue.
Going to the moon was also an engineering problem. There were material solutions to every problem encountered on our quest to fulfill that dream. If you understand how things work, then that knowledge is "enabling". The knowledge allows you to progress into the future. It gives you wings to fly with. Ordinary folk don't get it, so they continue to "believe" in fairy tails and pots of gold at the end of rainbows. To be constructive you must do work. You must work to generate order, be constructive, in the face of entropy, the disorder that flows and pushes you down stream. Don't let the stream carry you. It is harder to create, than it is to destroy, or go with the flow. Being lazy is a sign of the devil so to speak. Belief is lazyness because you aren't using your mind to figure things out, you are just accepting something that someone has told you is true. Only you can decide whether things are true or not based on your own experiences.
Be skeptical when people tell you things that you haven't a clue about. Go to school. Read science and engineering books.
Honestly, the line that spoke volumes to me was the line that Carl Sagan used in Cosmos... "We... accept the products of science, but reject its methods". If we could just make people who believe in crap live in the old world without science for a few years, I'm sure they would change their tune. Alas, hypocrisy is rampant these days. I'm sure I'll die before our species grows beyond such thinking.
Re:Superstitious Crackery (Score:3, Informative)
And from whence, exactly, have you devised the "complexity" of God?
Contemporary science could not even answer what the "complexity" is of the origination of natural laws on their own, or universes on their own, or any such thing, so I would be most interested to know how you are going about making a comparison between these respective complexities?
You might be interested to know, by the way, that when you
Re:Superstitious Crackery (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no. Occam's razor does not assume that the universe behaves simply.
Occam's razor states that you should not needlessly multiply entities. What does this mean? It means if you have a theory that "things move when you hit them", and you have another theory that needlessly states "things moves when you hit them and the moon is waning", and both theories are supported by experimental evidence, then you should throw away the needlessly complex version involving the moon. The extra complexity adds nothing to the value of the theory.
You cannot use Occam's razor to dismiss a complex theory. There is no assumption by Occam that complex theories are wrong, or that simpler theories are right. That's not what it means and anybody who attempts to use it that way is simply wrong.
Re:Superstitious Crackery (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone should seriously consider modding your post as flamebait. It's a FAR stretch from investigating a non-trivial co-incidence of recorded data and historic events to make the jump to witches and warlocks running the US (though they might do a better job than the current High Priest of Crawford)
While organizations like CSICOP can
Re:These people ARE NOT crackpots. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wtf? Brownian motion, Bose-Einstein statistics, explanation of photoeffect, special and general relativity theories were developed and finished long before 1932 - the year Einstein accepted the offer from Princeton.
Anyone care to elabote what great discoveries he did while in Princeton, and how is his name even remotely related to this idiotic story? Who gives money to these lunatics? Next thing you know they will be studying astrology, alchemy and witchcraft in Princeton. Really sad, if this not a hoax.
Re:These people ARE NOT crackpots. (Score:3)
Perhaps you should consider that the way this machine supposedly predicts the future is entierly subjective. What is the cutoff point for when randomness becomes non-randomness? What is the cutoff point for what is a significant world event? What happens when the detecor goes off and nothing takes place? What predictions do the scientists make about what the machne will do before and during a signifi
Re:These people ARE NOT crackpots. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are passing judgement on their work only on the basis of a PopSCI level article written for a 9th grade audiance.
Most, if not all, of your issues are addresed on the project sites.
Re:These people ARE NOT crackpots. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody plopped an MRI machine into a barber shop 100 years ago and said it would give a picture of your insides. X-rays did exist 100 years ago, were subjected to some high quality scientific inquiry and rapidly yielded their secrets (and some Nobel prizes). The same for those other devices - none of them came into existence before the physical principles they're based on were understood-- they're all products of engineering (application of known principles to produce something of use) and were developed well after the physical principles they depend on were discovered and explained.
I spend/have spent a fair bit of time surfing the crackpot line (that's where the fun is) and I'm pretty skeptical of this one. Sure, it deserves a good poking with a sharp stick (the foundation of good experimental science), but I doubt this will stand up to it.
Re:Moronic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Moronic (Score:3, Insightful)
I may not like Princeton [scarletknights.com], but I respect them.
If a random number generator is not behaving perfectly randomly, it isn't a random number generator, now is it?
And what is causing this decided non-randomness? Hmm? That's the question here. They're looking for an answer. It's called science. Just because it sounds strange doesn't mean it's wrong. Don't think I'm saying the inverse of that either, that just because it sou
Re:Uh huh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really sad how people can ignore the roots of science. To use a simple example, man KNEW about gravity before he had a theory about how it works. That's how science operates. You draw conclusions based on experimental results.
I'm not sure what causes people to be so immediately defensive. Maybe it's fright that everything people think they know could be turned upside down. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote from Donald Knuth that kind of encapsulates this whole discussion: "The fact is that everything we learn reveals more things that we do not understand."