• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Online Retrokinesis

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

Claus, would you consider the above overall z of 5.31 to be in line with what could be expected by chance?
 
steenkh said:


What assertion? I said "if psi can change history", I did not assert that psi could change history. I just interpreted what I read at Fourmilab, as you saw from the quote.
Click to expand...

Maybe the quote has now changed in Ian's perception of reality.
 
Lucianarchy said:
The shared balance of beliefs is what the past is. The sooner people 'realise' what is most probably going on, I predict the more striking the results of these observations will become.
Click to expand...

No need to make yet another failed prediction.

It doesn't help to pray for someone to get healed. It doesn't help that TM'ers meditate to lower the crime rate in Washington. It doesn't help that P.E.A.R. puts up "eggs" all over the world to see if a "global consciousness" can predict "global events".

It just doesn't work, Lucianarchy. The data shows it.
 
Interesting Ian said:


That paragraph is simply confused. Indeed a quantum measurement might well take an active part in the very formation of history. But this doesn't mean to say that you've altered the past. You and they are presupposing the concrete reality of a world in abstraction from any conscious observers.
Click to expand...

I am not presupposing anything. I am merely pointing out that there are as-of-yet unresolved conceptual issues surrounding the nature of quantum mechanics. Wheeler's & Einstein's camp is in fact one of the major ones, what with Wheeler and Einstein being two of the most important physicists of the century. In addition, the authors of that paper happen to be very well respected in their field. Perhaps you can take the issue up with them.


However, I shall read that link.
Click to expand...

Yes, please do.


Now, what about your claim that results are as equally strong when using pseudo-random numbers as for genuine random numbers??
Click to expand...

Again, it is not my claim. I find it as absurd as you. If I get the chance to find it again in Radin's book, I will post it here.
 
Lucianarchy said:
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

Claus, would you consider the above overall z of 5.31 to be in line with what could be expected by chance?
Click to expand...

What is this? Please explain.
 
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems possible to cheat at this. If the results aren't going too well, you can just press back on your browser.

Are the results still stored then?

What happens if you quite during a test?
 
CFLarsen said:

No, we are not making any fallacies. All it takes is one bit.
Click to expand...

Lol! And that's the fallacy! RPK data being discussed here is based on probability No one's claiming to bring something into existence which could not possibly be there in the first place. Fallacy.
 
Humphreys said:
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems possible to cheat at this. If the results aren't going too well, you can just press back on your browser.

Are the results still stored then?

What happens if you quite during a test?
Click to expand...

Try and actualy do the experiment by logging your email record. You will see that once you 'start', there is no going back. lol!
 
steenkh said:


What assertion? I said "if psi can change history", I did not assert that psi could change history. I just interpreted what I read at Fourmilab, as you saw from the quote.
Click to expand...

OK my error. But I don't think that retropsychokinesis, even if its existence were confirmed, would justify the thesis that you are actually changing history. No, you are, in a sense, creating history.
 
If you click back it does seem to still store the results actually, but if you click "Show My Experiment Log" during a test it doesn't seem to store the results.

Can anyone explain why it's not possible to cheat like this?

I'm doing the pendulum one, by the way.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Try and actualy do the experiment by logging your email record. You will see that once you 'start', there is no going back. lol!
Click to expand...

See above. When I click "Show My Experiment Log" during a test, the results don't seem to be stored.

It could just be me. Can you show how this is not the case?
 
CFLarsen said:

If it is possible to change a statistically significant number of bits to show an effect, then it is also possible to change just one bit.

So, the idea is to switch bits in a datastream.

One bit. That's all that is needed.
Click to expand...

Let me try explaining this in another context--one which a reader might be able to understand with no more than a layman's understanding of quantum mechanics. I will assume you are familiar with the Schroedinger's Cat gedankenexperiment, as that is the one most commonly treated in popular science literature.

The stream of qubits is analogous to a stream of Schroedinger's cats. Each cat is set up in a superposition; no cat is actually dead or actually alive just yet--they are "both." Quantum mechanics dictates that, upon measurement, the ratio of dead cats to alive cats should asymptotically approach 1:1. The hypothesis presented is that, given a particular conscious observer, the asymptotic probability will deviate from this (a hypothesis which I have no comment on as of yet). The state of each cat is indeterminate until observation, and the results can ONLY be interpreted statistically. This is a crucial point in quantum mechanics, one which I am not manufacturing.

If one were to repeat this experiment, but instead of using superposed Schroedinger cats, used previously killed ones, we would run into a severe difficulty. Do you now see why?
 
Lucianarchy said:
Lol! And that's the fallacy! RPK data being discussed here is based on probability No one's claiming to bring something into existence which could not possibly be there in the first place. Fallacy.
Click to expand...

Not a fallacy.

For something to happen, it only has to happen once. That's all we ask for. We don't ask for it to happen a statistically significant number of times. All we ask for is for one bit to be changed.

Just one.

Everything else is armwaving. Flimflam. Misdirection.
 
Humphreys said:
See above. When I click "Show My Experiment Log" during a test, the results don't seem to be stored.

It could just be me. Can you show how this is not the case?
Click to expand...

Can someone else try this please and let me know if this is indeed the case.

This opens a window for easy cheating if it's true. It seems to be to me but I'm looking confirmation from someone.

I might just be looking at this wrong.

Run a pendulum test on 'record', if it's going bad, click "Show My Experiment Log" on the screen, and see if your results are stored.

Well?
 
CFLarsen said:


Not a fallacy.

For something to happen, it only has to happen once. That's all we ask for. We don't ask for it to happen a statistically significant number of times. All we ask for is for one bit to be changed.

Just one.

Everything else is armwaving. Flimflam. Misdirection.
Click to expand...

Let us set aside all claims of psi for the time being, as this seems to be unnecessarily clouding the conversation.

The concept of probabilistic measurement is the very crux of quantum mechanics. When you say "one bit to be changed," what do you mean? Once a qubit has been measured once, all further measurements will yield exactly the same result. If it has not been measured before, and all we know is its quantum state (in this case 1/sqrt(2) (|0>+|1>)), then there is NO way of determining what the outcome will be. The best we can say is that, asymptotically, the number of qubits measured as |0> will equal the number measured as |1>.

Are we clear on this point?
 
flyboy217 said:
That paragraph is simply confused. Indeed a quantum measurement might well take an active part in the very formation of history. But this doesn't mean to say that you've altered the past. You and they are presupposing the concrete reality of a world in abstraction from any conscious observers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not presupposing anything.
Click to expand...

Everything you have said suggests otherwise.

I am merely pointing out that there are as-of-yet unresolved conceptual issues surrounding the nature of quantum mechanics. Wheeler's & Einstein's camp is in fact one of the major ones, what with Wheeler and Einstein being two of the most important physicists of the century. In addition, the authors of that paper happen to be very well respected in their field. Perhaps you can take the issue up with them.
Click to expand...

I am not interested in taking the issue up with them. My argument is with you. You have neither vindicated that the reality of retropsychokinesis entails that you have actually changed the past (rather than merely created it), nor have you vindicated that these QM experiments justifies the conclusion that one has changed the past (rather than merely created it).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, I shall read that link.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, please do.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what about your claim that results are as equally strong when using pseudo-random numbers as for genuine random numbers??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, it is not my claim. I find it as absurd as you. If I get the chance to find it again in Radin's book, I will post it here.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Right , so you're unable to back up your assertion.
 
Humphreys said:


Can someone else try this please and let me know if this is indeed the case.

This opens a window for easy cheating if it's true. It seems to be to me but I'm looking confirmation from someone.

I might just be looking at this wrong.

Run a pendulum test on 'record', if it's going bad, click "Show My Experiment Log" on the screen, and see if your results are stored.

Well?
Click to expand...

Not right away, if you interrupt the experiment. But try and check your log a bit later. It is there. Well, it is on mine, and I've tried what you suggest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom