Can Consciousness Effect Random Number Generators?

[Don Blazys]

To: Boerseun:

Quoting Boerseun:

They simply assume that it is caused by some sort of "global consciousness" - and now they're enumerating instances in support of their wacky hypothesis which could very well be caused by hosts of other reasons. This is not science.

Apparently, those "wacky" rascals at Princeton are completely unaware that their endeavor is "not science".

Quoting Boerseun:

In my first reply to this thread I have presented two alternative hypothesis with a much higher probability for being the cause of their measuring than "global consciousness". If it is indeed "global consciousness", then James Randi is out of a million bucks.

Show me the check with Randi's signature on it, and we'll take another look at this.

James Randi demands "proof" of a "paranormal phenomenon" before he "pays up".
However, "consciousness" is not a "paranormal phenomenon" but a self evident actuality.
That consciousness "collapses" the "probability function" of a quantum mechanical event
has nothing to do with "paranormal phenomena". It's a well known fact!
So, why should it be so difficult to surmise that
the same principle somehow applies in this instance?
Besides, no ammount of "statistical" evidence will ever constitute "proof",
so Randi's money is safe.

Don.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

That consciousness "collapses" the "probability function" of a quantum mechanical event
has nothing to do with "paranormal phenomena". It's a well known fact!

This was no more than a conjecture of the Copenhagen School, even before it fell somewhat into discredit. It's a bit on the tall side to call it a well known fact.

[Don Blazys]

To: qfwfq,

Quoting qfwfq:

This was no more than a conjecture of the Copenhagen School, even before it fell somewhat into discredit. It's a bit on the tall side to call it a well known fact.

To clarify, I meant that the "conjecture" is a "well known fact".
There are indeed many "competing conjectures"
such as the "instrumentalist interpretation", or the "many worlds interpretation",
but the Copenhagen interpretation is still
the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics.

For me, the "problem" of "interpreting" quantum mechanics can be reduced to this:

Any subjective and arbitrary seperation between the "observer" and the "observed" would still require that we somehow define the "observer"
as being "conscious" and the "observed" as being "unconscious".

What I find compelling about the "Global Consciousness Project" at Princeton University
is that the data seems to imply that no such seperation between "observer" and "observed" actually exists.

In other words, perhaps the distinction between "observer" and "observed" is entirely artificial
and "consciousness" is, in actuality, a non-local phenomenon that is neither dependent on biological function, nor contingent on any prerequisite condition involving matter, energy, time and space.

Any "experience" of "unconsciousness" would then be "self contradictory", "logically undefined",
and therefore "impossible", which would leave "consciousness" as the only possibility.

Don.

[CraigD]

The Global Consciousness Project is certainly a fascinating subject, regardless of whether one believe its claims that a tiny, but statistically significant higher “correlation” (more on what is meant by the unusual use of this term later) between the random numbers generated by its many hardware random number generators (RNG) occur when emotionally engaging things such as the funeral of Princess Dianna or the Olympic games occur than for other periods, or whether you see the continued efforts of the project’s participants as an example of wishful thinking making one believe in an effect that isn’t present, or even consciously or unconsciously distort, omit, or fake data.

I think it’s useful to be aware of the context of the GCP - where and who it comes from - and how it is similar to and different from previous similar projects.

GCP’s obvious parent project was the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, a small group (8 staff over its 28 year existence) of people from many academic disciplines (most notedly Engineering and Psychology) that conducted research from 1978 until 2007. Psychologist Roger Nelson of PEAR started GCP in 1997.

The major difference between PEAR’s main experiment and GCP’s is that, in PEAR’s, participants are aware of the existence, and/or location, etc. of an RNG, and attempt, without physically touching it, to increase or decrease the values of the random numbers it generates during a specific period. In the simplest, and most widely described, test, the average of the numbers for that period is then calculated, compared to the average for a long period, and the probability that the difference in average is due to chance (its z-score) calculated. If the difference in means is larger than expected due to chance, the test is considered a “hit” – that is, it’s assumed the subject caused the difference through their mental focus, or “intentions”. Controversially, PEAR usually considered a significant decrease in the average when the subject intended to produce an increase, and vice versa, to be a hit.

In the GCP, averages of random numbers are compared in a similar manner, but most of the people assumed to be affecting the RNGs are not aware of their existence. Instead, it’s assumed that the emotional state of large groups of people affect them. Although I’ve read superficially, I gather that GCP considers periods where many RNGs for the same period generate numbers with averages significantly greater or less than usual to be a hit.

PEAR suggested that the effects it claimed to show were due either to subjects minds exerting unexplained physical force – that is, psychokinesis – or to the subject exerting some sort of control over many effects of the very tiny level dominated by quantum mechanical effects – “choosing ones world-line” to borrow a concept from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. From this page of the GCP’s website, I get the impression that their explanations tend to more resemble Jung’s collective unconscious or Sheldrake’s morphic fields (both of which, like psychokinesis, are considered pseudoscientific).

A major difference between projects like PEAR and GCP and conventional scientific ones (for example, CERN’s ATHENA project), is that while the latter starts with a theoretical explanation of some effects, make precises predictions using that theory, and compare (very successfully, in ATHENA’s case) those predictions to experimental results, PEAR and GCP attempt more to show that an effect exists at all. Presumably, if an effect such as intention affecting RNGs could be clearly demonstrated, many people would be interested in developing theoretical explanation of it. Unfortunately for proponents of GCP, the effects it claims to demonstrate are not clearly demonstrated, leading most serious scientists and enthusiasts to doubt they exists at all.

If I may draw an imaginative analogy:

Imagine that you are an intelligent being living in a nearly zero-gravity opaque gas cloud in orbit around a brown dwarf. Through precise experiments, you show a miniscule attraction between small masses, but in an environment dominated by chemical and electrostatic forces, the effect is so small that few or you fellows are convinced your experiment shows any unexplained effect at all, and nobody is interested in developing a theory of gravity.

Eventually, however, you build a sufficiently large device – say an enclosed, zero-gravity Cavendish balance - well isolated from other known effects, and show unambiguously that gravity exists. Everybody acknowledges it, and a theories of gravity quickly emerge, expanding everyone’s understanding of the universe.

On Earth, the effect of gravity is strong compared to other effects, so its existence was never doubted, and theories about it emerged easily. For the “intentionality” effects PEAR and GPS sought and seek to demonstrate exists to be accepted, better demonstrations must be made.

Until they are, a reasonable person should accept that these effects may not exist at all, no matter how much some people wish they do. In the absence of a theory that makes prediction that have been experimentally shown to be correct, or a clear demonstration of an effect for which no good explanation has been proposed, the tiny statistical effects that a few people believe are statistically significant, but most well-trained statisticians believe are not, simply are not to be accepted as significant.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

but the Copenhagen interpretation is still
the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The conjecture about concious observer has been very much replaced with decoherence. Some consider the CO conjecture as part of the definition of the Copenhagen interpretation, others consider the currently prevailing view as a variant of it, hence the ambiguity.

[UncleAl]

Google
fourmilab "hotbits" 7640 hits

http://www.anomalistik.de/sdm_pdfs/etzold.pdf

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. If sincere mass thought made any difference at all, Bill Gates would be reduced to a smoking crater so many times/day.

[Don Blazys]

To: Craig D,

Quoting Craig D:

The Global Consciousness Project is certainly a fascinating subject.

There's an old saying that: "curiosity killed the cat".
However, any cat that is not curious is already dead!
(Including the one in the box.)

It is important to be curious about "curiosities" such as the G.C.P. because
it quite often happens that the investigation of some "curiosity" yields important results.

Even if the G.C.P. does turm out to be a "dead end street",
at least we will have learned that consciousness can't
effect random number generators, and that would at least
provide another "clue" to the mystery that is "consciousness".

Indeed, sometimes the failure of an experiment leads
sufficiently curious investigators to results that are absolutely mind bending.

For instance, the Michelson-Morely experiment seemed an abysmal failure... at first,
but it helped prompt the insatiably curious Albert Einstein to investigate further,
and he, in turn, provided the solution to what most other scientists believed was
a matter not even worth investigating.

That solution, of course, was "special relativity".

Quoting Craig D:

....a reasonable person should accept that these effects may not exist at all, no matter how much some people wish they do. In the absence of a theory that makes prediction that have been experimentally shown to be correct, or a clear demonstration of an effect for which no good explanation has been proposed, the tiny statistical effects that a few people believe are statistically significant, but most well-trained statisticians believe are not, simply are not to be accepted as significant.

As I'm sure you know, I am a most reasonable and humble Hypographer.
I am well aware of the fact that the evidence is by no means "overwhelming",
and may even be "non-existent" pending further investigation.

Don.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

For instance, the Michelson-Morely experiment seemed an abysmal failure...

It was reasonable to perform the MM experiments and it was reasonable to take the negative result seriously, Einstein certainly wasn't the only loony that strove to match things up! Actually, the sticky issue began as the result of Maxwell's equations. The mystery was already out, and it was the negative result that seemed absurd, that's what the actual interesting thing was despite you calling it "an abysmal failure" and it was unequivocal by the time they quit.

If the evidence becomes compelling enough, it will become reasonable for more folks to think about it. Apart from the fact that I don't even see the nexus with Copenhagen as being all that precise, I can't remember that source even saying what kind of generators they are, based on which kind of randomness? What kind of test have they checked?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

... I can't remember that source even saying what kind of generators they are, based on which kind of randomness? What kind of test have they checked?

The random number generators used by the Global Consciousness Project are known as “Princeton EGGs”, a playful acronym standing for “Electro Gaia Gram”. They’re described as equivalent to high-speed fair coin-toss counters, each producing the sum of bits of a 200 bit value once per second. Thus the random numbers generated should follow a binomial distribution with mean 100 and variance 50.

Though I’ve not found a schematic diagram of one, a summary description is included in many document from the GCP, such as The EGG story, from which I also got the above, and which includes some sample statistics. They’re said to “work with measurements of ‘white noise’ like the random static between radio stations”, recording a 1 bit if a sampled amplitude exceeds the average, a 0 if it’s below.

[Don Blazys]

To: Uncle Al,

Quoting Uncle Al:

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. If sincere mass thought made any difference at all, Bill Gates would be reduced to a smoking crater so many times/day.

Most people don't hate Bill Gates, and are probably
too busy to give him much thought anyway.
Personally, in the past five years or so,
Bill Gates crossed my mind only three times,
two of those times as a result of your posts.

Adolph Hitler, on the other hand, was quite hated,
and was indeed and quite literally, "reduced to a smoking crater" !

Anyway, that link that you posted to an article in "The Journal Of Parapsychology"
seems to imply that the "incredible claims" being made by those
"cranks" and "crackpots" at Princeton University are not backed up by substantial evidence.

However, on their website, they claim that the odds are actually
"one in a million" that their results are due to chance.
(That's a probability of almost 1 that their results are not a matter of luck,
which they then have the audacity to claim is "highly significant".)
Moreover, they also claim that the statistical analysis
of their results is both rigorous and sophisticated.

Now, I have no idea why their website does not include the actual
equations, algorithms, programs and printouts of their
"sophisticated statistical analysis", and can only conjecture that perhaps...
just perhaps...they did not want to "bore us with details".

Thus, we are supposed to assume that the scientists at Princeton are competent and that
the tables and graphs on their website are based on sound mathematical principles.

Don.