what do you think of psychics manipulating RNGs? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Zeraph · 03-22-2011, 09:03 AM

Random number generators.

Quote:

The advent of electronic and computer technologies has allowed researchers to develop highly automated experiments studying the interaction between mind and matter. In one such experiment, a Random Number Generator (RNG) based on electronic or radioactive noise produces a data stream that is recorded and analyzed by computer software.

In the typical RNG experiment, a subject attempts to mentally change the distribution of the random numbers, usually in an experimental design that is functionally equivalent to getting more "heads" than "tails" while flipping a coin. Of course the electronic, computerized experiment has many advantages over earlier research using, e.g., tossed coins or dice. In the RNG experiment, great flexibility is combined with careful scientific control and a high rate of data acquisition.

A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years. The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent, resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15 standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the behavior of a random physical system. Furthermore, while experimental quality had significantly increased over time, this was uncorrelated with the effect size, in contradiction to a frequent, but unfounded skeptical criticism.

Some parapsychologists believe that these results can be accounted for by ESP if the experimenter (or their participants) intuitively know the right moment to start their studies to get significant results. This is known as Decision Augmentation Theory. However, the apparent effect of focused mass consciousness on a world-wide network of RNGs (see the Global Consciousness Project) suggest that at least some of the time, there is an element of mind-matter interaction.

Parapsychology FAQ Page 2

Seems legit to me. We already know observing an object will change it. i.e. you can't know a particles exact position and velocity I think it goes (physics has been awhile).

So if this is true, what does it mean? By general statistics it should mean there are at least a few anomalies out there that could be much more powerful. I wonder what they can do and if they know it? Perhaps they're good gamblers.

telekinetic · 03-22-2011, 02:38 PM

I think that Twilight Sparkle might be powerful enough to have a statistically measurable effect on a RNG, once she studied them and understood them. It is not any more difficult than her ability to hold of an Ursa Minor and move a water tower simultaneously.

Zeraph · 03-22-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by telekinetic

I think that Twilight Sparkle might be powerful enough to have a statistically measurable effect on a RNG, once she studied them and understood them. It is not any more difficult than her ability to hold of an Ursa Minor and move a water tower simultaneously.

Wah? I only understood about half what you said.

Martian · 03-22-2011, 03:21 PM

Twilight Sparkle?

I'm reasonably sure anything I say on this subject is going to result in my being accused of being a closed minded bigot anyway.

Zeraph · 03-22-2011, 04:55 PM

Feel free Martian, all are entitled to their own opinion. i just ask you support with some amount of evidence and not make silly jokes. Like how they found there to be 15! standard deviations off the norm (that's a huge difference for those not fluent in stat jargon). The likely-hood that its off, they said something like 1 in 10 trillion (or some big as number).

StanT · 03-23-2011, 01:36 PM

I'm really not seeing a lot of detail here.

RNG aren't really random at this point. The may use complex and obscure algorithms to create a pseudo random number; but they aren't really random.

As I read the data, they weren't trying to get a specific result, just prove the non-randomness of something that isn't really random in the first place. I'd go with statistical BS.

MSD · 03-23-2011, 08:20 PM

Random number generators aren't random and anyone who claims psychic abilities is either delusional or a fraud. If an experiment that is controlled and blinded as necessary to rule out bias of those recording the results can show otherwise, I am willing to believe so and there is a man in Florida with a million dollars for them.

Martian · 03-23-2011, 08:31 PM

Random number generators are not random, but let's not be disingenuous. It's entirely possible and not even that difficult to program a computer such that it produces output which is impossible to predict. I accomplish this feat regularly, whenever I need a random string of text.

Just because it's not truly random, doesn't mean it's predictable. However, just because they're calling it random, doesn't mean it actually is.

Single unsourced page with vague references to "scientific studies?" This has buried the needle on my bullshit-o-meter.

StanT · 03-24-2011, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Random number generators are not random, but let's not be disingenuous. It's entirely possible and not even that difficult to program a computer such that it produces output which is impossible to predict. I accomplish this feat regularly, whenever I need a random string of text.

Just because it's not truly random, doesn't mean it's predictable. However, just because they're calling it random, doesn't mean it actually is.

Impossible for a human to predict? sure Can a second computer generate the same string using the same parameters? I would think so.

I have an RSA key that seemingly generates random 6 digit numbers. Clearly, they aren't random or I wouldn't be logging into anything.

I'll admit to skimming the article; but they seem to imply cause and effect simply because pseudo random numbers aren't totally random. Meaningless BS. If they want to make a case, have everyone's RSA key read 999999 at a specific time.

Zeraph · 03-24-2011, 07:43 AM

What's a source that a RNG isn't random? I haven't heard of that.

The_Jazz · 03-24-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Single unsourced page with vague references to "scientific studies?" This has buried the needle on my bullshit-o-meter.

Damn, I've missed you.

◙TaciturnToker◙ · 03-24-2011, 01:11 PM

I will believe in psychics when someone wins James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. Until then, consider me from Missouri

Zeraph · 03-24-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Single unsourced page with vague references to "scientific studies?" This has buried the needle on my bullshit-o-meter.

At least I provided *something*. It was supposed to be more of an article to get a discussion going. I'm not talking psychics that see the future, or can move things with their minds, just our own observational different on randomness.

citadel · 03-24-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeraph

What's a source that a RNG isn't random? I haven't heard of that.

A manmade machine or system can never be truly random, just less than predictable. Similar to a perpetual motion device, it's very nature gets in the way of it's goal.

Zeraph · 03-28-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citadel

A manmade machine or system can never be truly random, just less than predictable. Similar to a perpetual motion device, it's very nature gets in the way of it's goal.

....Yeah we can. Certain matter emits particles randomly, yet at an average steady rate. If you hook up a very sensitive machine it can detect it. So take something with an average rate of 1 particle per second. Then if the machine senses a particle or two, it gives a yes answer. If there are no particles within that second, then it gives a no. Obviously the yes no would need to be delayed slightly, but its still a random creation device.

is pretty sure

03-22-2011, 02:38 PM	#2 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	I think that Twilight Sparkle might be powerful enough to have a statistically measurable effect on a RNG, once she studied them and understood them. It is not any more difficult than her ability to hold of an Ursa Minor and move a water tower simultaneously. __________________ twisted no more

03-22-2011, 03:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Twilight Sparkle? I'm reasonably sure anything I say on this subject is going to result in my being accused of being a closed minded bigot anyway. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

03-23-2011, 08:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Random number generators are not random, but let's not be disingenuous. It's entirely possible and not even that difficult to program a computer such that it produces output which is impossible to predict. I accomplish this feat regularly, whenever I need a random string of text. Just because it's not truly random, doesn't mean it's predictable. However, just because they're calling it random, doesn't mean it actually is. Single unsourced page with vague references to "scientific studies?" This has buried the needle on my bullshit-o-meter. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

03-22-2011, 04:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Feel free Martian, all are entitled to their own opinion. i just ask you support with some amount of evidence and not make silly jokes. Like how they found there to be 15! standard deviations off the norm (that's a huge difference for those not fluent in stat jargon). The likely-hood that its off, they said something like 1 in 10 trillion (or some big as number).

03-23-2011, 01:36 PM	#6 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	I'm really not seeing a lot of detail here. RNG aren't really random at this point. The may use complex and obscure algorithms to create a pseudo random number; but they aren't really random. As I read the data, they weren't trying to get a specific result, just prove the non-randomness of something that isn't really random in the first place. I'd go with statistical BS.

03-23-2011, 08:20 PM	#7 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Random number generators aren't random and anyone who claims psychic abilities is either delusional or a fraud. If an experiment that is controlled and blinded as necessary to rule out bias of those recording the results can show otherwise, I am willing to believe so and there is a man in Florida with a million dollars for them.

03-24-2011, 07:43 AM	#10 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	What's a source that a RNG isn't random? I haven't heard of that.

03-24-2011, 01:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
◙TaciturnToker◙ Upright Location: Massachusetts	I will believe in psychics when someone wins James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. Until then, consider me from Missouri