You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Consciousness Project
- Thread starter paintedbird
- Start date
-
- Tags
- consciousness global project
CFLarsen said:So, we cannot say that the Orion RNG that is sold has passed the DIEHARD test.Reason? How can they know that the Zener diodes produce the same noise?Fact:They can't.Of course, the issue of (non)calibration still stands.
I guess you'd have to email them for your further very specific inquiries. As far as your "Fact", you'd have to inquire further to establish that. But don't let the facts stop you. At leas GCP makes their data available for all though..
Just to remind you of how you jumped to conclusions earlier
Claus, READ what the webpage actually says. INQUIRE about what it says. At the top of the page, it says the RNG passed the DIEHARD tests. OK. Further down the page, it talks about another test and using 2Mb. Here, however, it does not specifically mention that this was again the DIEHARD tests. You assume that. Moreover, without actually inquiring, you have no idea if there was a typo, if they were talking about another test or the DIEHARD tests here, or if you misunderstood something.
jzs said:At leas GCP makes their data available for all though..
[/B]
Could you help me, i didn't find on their webpage, where they make all their data avaible in the same way as the present the data of their famous examples, e.g. the 9/11 curves?
As far as i found, they only make the data avaible, where they think they found something interesting.
Thanks
Carn
Carn said:Could you help me, i didn't find on their webpage, where they make all their data avaible in the same way as the present the data of their famous examples, e.g. the 9/11 curves?
As far as i found, they only make the data avaible, where they think they found something interesting.
Thanks
Carn
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html
jzs said:
Do you think that the data for Dec 26th, 2004, supports the idea that a global consciousness exists?
jzs said:
Sorry, i was not specific enough, I was looking for curves like the 1st, 2nd and 6th on http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html , but just for an ordinary day, e.g. 3.1.2005.
The entries in their calendar archieve :
http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2005/summary-2005-01-03.html
http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2001/summary-2001-09-11.html
do not show them and the raw data looks rather similar.
Carn
Carn said:Sorry, i was not specific enough, I was looking for curves like the 1st, 2nd and 6th on http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html , but just for an ordinary day, e.g. 3.1.2005.
The entries in their calendar archieve :
http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2005/summary-2005-01-03.html
http://noosphere.global-mind.org/data/eggsummary/2001/summary-2001-09-11.html
do not show them and the raw data looks rather similar.
Carn
The page http://www.fourmilab.ch/eggtools/eggshell/ has some C++ code that is available to download for various programs to do the analysis on the data files you download. It sounds to me like the "analysis" one is the one you are after.
CFLarsen said:Do you think that the data for Dec 26th, 2004, supports the idea that a global consciousness exists?
Claus. I don't speak in terms of "global consciousness". I don't even know what that term means. I'd rephrase your question to asking if the data supports RNG output for that day being significantly beyond chance expectation.
A p-value of ~.39 is not evidence of such a deviation.
Here is their page on it:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/earthquake.tsunami.html
As long as we're asking each other questions, here's one for you.
This is a graph of RNG output with the theoretical RNG expectation superimposed. Basically a 'coin' is being flipped 200 times, and the number of heads is being kept track of, and this is done many times.
Claus, would you say that the RNG is performing as expected? Yes or No?
This is a graph of RNG output with the theoretical RNG expectation superimposed. Basically a 'coin' is being flipped 200 times, and the number of heads is being kept track of, and this is done many times.
Claus, would you say that the RNG is performing as expected? Yes or No?
Claus,
Why did you attempt to pressure me with your demand of
"Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no."
when, in fact, when you asked that you did not know if there was an explanation (there was, as posted) for why they said the Orion passed the DIEHARD test and then the only wrote about using ~2million bytes farther down on the page?
Why, now, do you move the goalposts by talking about Zener diodes producing equal noise (which is moot since the RNGs pass the tests)?
Why do you expect others to take you seriously when you preach you version of skepticism when you violate its main tenets?
Why did you attempt to pressure me with your demand of
"Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no."
when, in fact, when you asked that you did not know if there was an explanation (there was, as posted) for why they said the Orion passed the DIEHARD test and then the only wrote about using ~2million bytes farther down on the page?
Why, now, do you move the goalposts by talking about Zener diodes producing equal noise (which is moot since the RNGs pass the tests)?
Why do you expect others to take you seriously when you preach you version of skepticism when you violate its main tenets?
jzs said:Claus. I don't speak in terms of "global consciousness". I don't even know what that term means. I'd rephrase your question to asking if the data supports RNG output for that day being significantly beyond chance expectation.
A p-value of ~.39 is not evidence of such a deviation.
Here is their page on it:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/earthquake.tsunami.html
Call it what you like.
Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation?
Would December 26 2003?
Would February 2003?
jzs said:This is a graph of RNG output with the theoretical RNG expectation superimposed. Basically a 'coin' is being flipped 200 times, and the number of heads is being kept track of, and this is done many times.
Claus, would you say that the RNG is performing as expected? Yes or No?
How "many" times is this done? We need to know that, before we can say anything about performing "as expected".
I really hope you can see the inherent irony in expecting an RNG to perform according to a Bell curve, when you at the same time expect it not to....
jzs said:Why, now, do you move the goalposts by talking about Zener diodes producing equal noise (which is moot since the RNGs pass the tests)?
It is absolutely not moot: The diodes are the data source. If the data source is not tested, then the RNG can't be said to pass any test.
- If the zener voltage changes even fractionally from RNG to RNG, what will this mean to the output in terms of randomness?
- Is the tolerance of voltage specified, and is it the same for each diode?
- Does Orion use the same voltage diodes?
Questions for you to ponder.
CFLarsen said:Call it what you like.
Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation?
Would December 26 2003?
Would February 2003?
You'll haev to look at their results page and see if there was a formal prediction for that day, etc., if you are itnerested in findining out.
I'm obviously not going to do your work and keep listing and interpreting p-values for you, etc.
CFLarsen said:
I really hope you can see the inherent irony in expecting an RNG to perform according to a Bell curve, when you at the same time expect it not to....
It shows the RNG overall performs as expected, Claus.
Think: 'calibrated'.
CFLarsen said:It is absolutely not moot:
Yes, it is. The RNG passes the test.
The diodes are the data source. If the data source is not tested, then the RNG can't be said to pass any test.
The RNG output it tested, Claus. The RNG does pass the tests, Claus.
Claus
Claus,
Why did you attempt to pressure me with your demand of
"Do you admit that the Orion RNG has not passed the DIEHARD test? Just yes or no."
when, in fact, when you asked that you did not know if there was an explanation (there was, as posted) for why they said the Orion passed the DIEHARD test and then the only wrote about using ~2million bytes farther down on the page?
HELLO?
jzs said:It shows the RNG overall performs as expected, Claus.
Think: 'calibrated'.
How "many" times was the coin flipped? We need to know that, before we can say anything about performing "as expected".
Is it one time? Two times? 20 times? Over how long a period?
Hey, if you don't know, just say so.
- If the zener voltage changes even fractionally from RNG to RNG, what will this mean to the output in terms of randomness?
- Is the tolerance of voltage specified, and is it the same for each diode?
- Does Orion use the same voltage diodes?
Still pondering those questions? It's OK, take your time.
jzs said:You'll haev to look at their results page and see if there was a formal prediction for that day, etc., if you are itnerested in findining out.
I'm obviously not going to do your work and keep listing and interpreting p-values for you, etc.
You never do any work, not even your own.
Here are the events and the results:
Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation? Yes, terrorist Attacks in Spain.
Following precedents from other terrorist attacks, I set the period from 07:00 to 12:00 as the formal prediction (6 to 11 GMT), to include some time before the first explosion and several hours of the aftermath. The trend over this period is extreme -- but it is a negative slope, opposite to the standard prediction.
Source
The answer: No.
Would December 26 2003? Yes, the Bam Earthquake.
The GCP data show no trend focused on the time of the quake or the main aftershock, though there is a strong increment beginning about three hours after the main tremblor.
Source
The answer: No.
Would February 2003? Yes, the Columbia Disaster.
The formal prediction period was set from 08:00 to noon, to include an hour of precursor time and three hours following the explosion for the news to spread.
...
First, the formal analysis. It does not show a significant departure from expectation.
Source
The answer: No.
Do you still think that there is "something" going on, Justin? If you do, do you think it is tied to global events such as these?
CFLarsen said:You never do any work, not even your own.
Here are the events and the results:
Would March 11 2004 show p-value that is evidence of such a deviation? Yes, terrorist Attacks in Spain.
The answer: No.
Would December 26 2003? Yes, the Bam Earthquake.
The answer: No.
Would February 2003? Yes, the Columbia Disaster.
The answer: No.
Do you still think that there is "something" going on, Justin? If you do, do you think it is tied to global events such as these?
Well there are many single events that don't show statistical significance. You seem to think that the issue can be summed up by a few events, which is rather an incorrect view.
The overall p-value from the database of formal hypotheses is very significant.