Online Retrokinesis

[Interesting Ian]

Yes. The result is predetermined before you even click start.

Ummm, the result can't be predetermined otherwise you couldn't possibly influence it. Get your facts right.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Okay, so they generate a random bit stream, then use it to drive the clock or whatever display you've chosen. If you manage to skew the clock, the theory is that you've retroactively affected the RNG. Have I got this right?

Yes but you can't change the past. You just determine its reality in the present.

So what happens if they copy the random bit stream and store it on disk before the trial starts? Can we watch the stored bit stream change as you skew the clock? In real time?

Once the data is observed then the reality becomes concrete. Obviously one cannot then alter it by psi. Reality only becomes concrete once a sentient being has observed it.

How about if we make 1,000 copies of the bit stream? Will they all change?

Presumably the RNG is a pseudo-random number generator routine running on some computer. Can I retroactively affect the operation of other routines on the computer?

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

 

[Interesting Ian]

YES! the link is now working.

 

[steenkh]

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

True. But you can take a copy of the output. Actually, I would believe that they have only a single radioactive random number generator, and that they just tap in on that. Which means that if two persons are taking the test at the same time, they would see the same stream of random numbers. So the question is valid: will all copies change?

 

[CFLarsen]

This is really quite hilarious.

It's ridiculous. Why this complicated setup? All they need is to see if just one bit can be changed.

It's exactly the same with P.E.A.R. and those silly "eggs": The theory is that "global events" (which can be anything, it seems) change the bits in a string of random 0's and 1's.

Instead, the eggs should generate all 0's, and all they would have to do is look for just one 1.

Of course, by not keeping it simple, they also increase the possibilities of interpreting the data. Without this interpretation, there would be no P.E.A.R. at all.

I wonder how P.E.A.R. calibrated those eggs....

 

[CFLarsen]

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

Why? It's just a string of bits.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yup, it says:

Retropsychokinesis is the claimed ability of certain subjects to alter random data generated, but not examined, prior to the time the data are presented to the subject.

So TheBoyPaj, your contention that the result has been determined before examining the data cannot be upheld.

You're making the mistake of assuming the existence of a material reality. But the results can only be explained by assuming that reality only becomes "concrete" or actualised when a conscious being observes it.

So retropsychokinesis, if it exists, not only refutes materialism, but also the existence of a material world (ie a world existing in abstraction from our observations of it).

This then proves my idealism is correct. Agreed?

 

[Ed]

I know that it is un-PC but the mentally ill are so amusing.

 

[Lucianarchy]

[b]RetroPK Database[/b]

AUTHORS YEAR JOURNAL z-score
Bierman, et.al. 1975 EJP 1-1 0.89
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 3.14
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 4.22
Schmidt 1976 JASPR 70 2.90
Millar, et.al. 1976 RIP 1976 0.00
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 1.15
Houtkooper 1977 EJP 1-4 -0.28
Broughton, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 0.00
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -3.07
Terry, et.al. 1977 RIP 1977 -1.60
Braud, et.al. 1979 JSPR -0.10
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 1.90
Gruber 1980 EJP 3-2 3.08
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 3.23
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 0.37
Houtkooper 1980 EJP 3-3 -2.45
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.82
Schmidt 1985 JoP 49 1.96
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 -1.90
Bierman 1985 EJP 5 1.54
Schmidt, et.al. 1986 JoP 50 2.71
Schmidt, et.al. 1988 RIP 1988 1.66
Schmidt, et.al. 1990 RIP 1991 0.62
Schmidt, et.al. 1992 JoP 57 1.88
Michels 1993 Skepsis 6 1.64
Schmidt & Stapp 1993 JoP 57 1.23

TOTAL-z=5.31

T'ai, would you consider the above overall z of 5.31 to be in line with what could be expected by chance?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I know that it is un-PC but the mentally ill are so amusing.

I scarcely think materialism is in accordance with common-sense either Indeed it is vastly more uncommonsensical than idealism. It's just that people don't understand what materialism implies.

Anyway, from a philosophical perspective, and from common experiences, and from parapsychological research, materialism is utterly destroyed.

 

[flyboy217]

Presumably the RNG is a pseudo-random number generator routine running on some computer. Can I retroactively affect the operation of other routines on the computer?

Why presume when you can read?

"HotBits: Genuine random numbers, generated by radioactive decay"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

 

[flyboy217]

Yes but you can't change the past. You just determine its reality in the present.

Are you familiar with the delayed choice experiments? You can alter the history of an observable by the choice you make in the present. This could be called "changing the past."

I claim no QM ties to the RPKP project. Just an interesting thought.

You cannot possibly affect a pseudo-random number generator. It of course has to be genuinely random.

Have you read Radin or PEAR? Supposedly more than one group has demonstrated that pseudorandom number generators are just as easy to influence. Fishy, I know.

 

[flyboy217]

True. But you can take a copy of the output. Actually, I would believe that they have only a single radioactive random number generator, and that they just tap in on that. Which means that if two persons are taking the test at the same time, they would see the same stream of random numbers. So the question is valid: will all copies change?

This is explained on the RNG page:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Bits are retrieved by sequential http requests:

Once the random bytes are delivered to you, they are immediately discarded--the same data will never be sent to any other user and no records are kept of the data at this or any other site.

 

[flyboy217]

It's ridiculous. Why this complicated setup? All they need is to see if just one bit can be changed.

It's exactly the same with P.E.A.R. and those silly "eggs": The theory is that "global events" (which can be anything, it seems) change the bits in a string of random 0's and 1's.

Instead, the eggs should generate all 0's, and all they would have to do is look for just one 1.

Of course, by not keeping it simple, they also increase the possibilities of interpreting the data. Without this interpretation, there would be no P.E.A.R. at all.

I wonder how P.E.A.R. calibrated those eggs....

Curious, how might one go about doing this? Using radioactive decay, the idea is generating a string of qubits in the state

1/sqrt(2) (|0> + |1>)

Which yields a measurement of 0 half the time, and 1 the other half. If it were to generate "all" zeros (|0>), then there's presumably no possibility of generating ones at all. Suggestions?

I believe the hypothesis is that consciousness can affect measurement, not generation. Since the collapse of the state vector is very poorly (not at all?) understood, I'm not sure how this hypothesis contradicts QM. I'd love to hear if there are any ideas on this.

 

[steenkh]

Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

 

[CFLarsen]

If it were to generate "all" zeros (|0>), then there's presumably no possibility of generating ones at all.

And that's what we are looking for. Then, it is extremely easy to see if the datastring has been altered: Just look for a 1 in the ocean of 0's.

No need for complicated statistics. No need for mumbo-jumbo.

Just look for a 1.

 

[Ed]

Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

If one can change the past, why does the number string need to be random? It seems to me that this is yet another ploy to obfuscate by appealing to odd atatistics and other gyrations.

Suppose the "generator" simply produces a zero every millisecod and the job of the "changer of reality" is to pop a one in now and then?

Why not do this with any of the purported RNG protocols? I think that I know.

 

[flyboy217]

Thanks, flyboy217,

I had not seen that. But I am a bit worried about the statement that random numbers are mostly served from an inventory of "pre-built" hotbits. This may be fine for most random number purposes, but for a psi experiment it sounds as if it could cause trouble.

And even if Fourmilab is not sending these bits anybody else, it is still possible for someone with access to a server on the way to the end user to take a copy of all the packages and this would mean that both copies should be changed if the experiment works.

Anyway, if psi can change history, it would also mean that all copies would be changed, wouldn't it?

Are you familiar with the no-cloning theorem? It is not possible to clone a qubit (and preserve its quantum state, that is). This is an important point in QM.

If they were to copy the bits, it would have to be classically--in which case collapse has already occurred, and by hypothesis, further change is not possible. So if they were indeed copying them, we should see it as "no effect."

 

[flyboy217]

And that's what we are looking for. Then, it is extremely easy to see if the datastring has been altered: Just look for a 1 in the ocean of 0's.

No need for complicated statistics. No need for mumbo-jumbo.

Just look for a 1.

Whether or not they have any valid claims, or whether their hypothesis is reasonable or not, I have no idea about. If you haven't studied QM yourself, please do not take my word for it. Tez is an expert in Quantum Information Science. Please ask his opinion.

I do not understand how one might quantum mechanically generate qubits that are "sometimes" 0 or "sometimes" 1. The probability of measuring a qubit in a particular state is very well defined. The most one can do is measure a deviation from expected probabilities.

This is not mumbo-jumbo, although if you're not familiar with QM, I can see how it might sound as such. All claims of psi aside, this is very well understood in quantum mechanics.

 

[flyboy217]

If one can change the past, why does the number string need to be random? It seems to me that this is yet another ploy to obfuscate by appealing to odd atatistics and other gyrations.

Suppose the "generator" simply produces a zero every millisecod and the job of the "changer of reality" is to pop a one in now and then?

Why not do this with any of the purported RNG protocols? I think that I know.

Please see prior post. In this case, it needs to be random because, by hypothesis, they need to generate a stream of qubits that have not yet undergone collapse.

If the hypothesis were as general as "people can retroactively change reality," I would agree with you. But if the hypothesis is "consciousness can affect the probabilities of the state vector collapse" as it seems to be, this protocol is quite necessary.