Online Retrokinesis

[flyboy217]

Ah, okay, I was mistaken. Ian has explained it. It is not that you are changing the pregenerated bit stream after it is generated. You are actually affecting the original generation of the bit stream.

Excellent. I think we're all (mostly?) in agreement on this point.

I believe the confusion comes from the difference in "qubit" and "bit." The qubit stream (the stream generated by the radioactive decay process) is itself never altered. Each qubit comes out as a balanced superposition of the kets |0> and |1>. The observation (and hence collapse) of each of these qubits is what generates the observed classical bit stream. Once collapsed, this classical bit stream is not subject to alteration.

The hypothesis, then, is that the proportion of 0s and 1s can be altered from 50/50 in the observed classical stream.

 

[Ed]

It seems to me that QM is not particularly useful in a discussion of PSI since it appears that we then pile conjecture on top of supposition. The only issue is clear, repeatable results. And the answers to a number of thought questions:

-Who has won the glittering prizes?
-Why have elements of PSI not been selecetd for in human evolution
-If PSI is so delicate that one requires analyses at the 15th decimal, why did anyone ever think to look for it in the first place? And if it is as obvious and ubiquitous as some claim, why look in the 15th decimal place?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, do you believe that a z score of 5.31 is in line with you could resonably expect of chance?

Please explain your post above.

 

[flyboy217]

flyboy,

You seem to be the one here who understands QM best. If psi really can influence, select, or whatever, the qubits here, would that not in effect create a problem for QM? I mean, it is crucial for QM that these cats are superimposed alive and dead, but here we have psi killing off some of the cats, before their boxes have been opened, right?

I am no expert on QM, but I'll try my best to explain it as I understand it.

It is not that the purpoted psi effect would be killing off some of the cats before their boxes have been opened; instead, it is that more cats are found dead in the long run than would be expected. On a case-by-case basis, nothing strange is going on.

The state that the Schroedinger Cat is in is expressed by

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

According to QM, the observation of such a qubit should yield |0> with a probability equal to the square of its amplitude--in this case, .5. Similarly for |1>. Since each measurement is purely probabilistic, no individual measurement can be viewed as strange.

The problem is that there should be no way that these probabilities can asymptotically differ from .50. If this were to happen for "sufficiently many" trials, then maybe something interesting is going on.

Unfortunately, QM hasn't formulated a way to integrate the concept of state vector collapse into the evolution of the Schroedinger equation. I would turn to someone more intimately involved in recent QM research (e.g., Tez) for more explanation on this point. But from all I've read, the actual collapse of the state vector is left untouched by QM.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Please explain your post above.

Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

 

[Sindai]

Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Where do you get the "total Z" from?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Since you (again) refuse to give proper references, I found the page myself.

Please clarify:

• On what criteria were the experiments selected?
• Did the experiments use the same design and protocol?
• Were the number generators all true random generators, yes or no?

I suspect the answers (if you are able to at all) will be:

• "Let's take those that will give a good answer"
• "No"
• "No"

 

[Lothian]

Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study? or as the site says "Whether that "something" is something interesting (e.g., paranormal) depends on an analysis of the tightness of the experimental protocols."

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study? or as the site says "Whether that "something" is something interesting (e.g., paranormal) depends on an analysis of the tightness of the experimental protocols."

It's the usual, desperate clinging to any result, no matter how suspect it is, just as long as it reinforces their belief in the paranormal.

Nothing new (again).

 

[Zep]

...like PEAR did with 25 years of remote viewing data! Each individual experimental set of data was a "startling example of psi remote viewing", and meta-analysis of the results were expected to sharply delineate the reason(s) why. Much rubbing of hands at Princeton...

Oh dear, it didn't. In fact, it showed nothing expect randomness. As predicted by the skeptics. Why? Very basically because PEAR persisted with poor experimental design, and in counting the hits and not the misses. For 25 years, it seems.

What did they do then? Why, what any good psi research organisation seems to do! They buried it in jargon words so it looked like a success, and published in the Journal of Parapsychology, so that people like Lucianarchy would read it and think it was support for their psi fanatsies.

 

[davidhorman]

Is the "let's see you change a stream of zeroes into ones" argument over? Because I was going to compare it to asking someone with a die covered in 6s to roll a 5. The RNG thing is actually like asking someone with a die with three 1s and three 6s to roll more 1s. The first example is impossible by definition, but the second is possible, just unlikely.

(flyboy)

The interesting thing is that the qubit will not collapse merely by being recorded classically.

Who says?

This is a point often brought up with Schroedinger's cat: if a video camera were to record the death/not-death of the cat, it wouldn't reduce the cat to one state. Instead, the video camera goes into a superposition with the cat. Only an "observation" will collapse this augmented state.

I discussed in another topic not too long ago. I'm of the opinion that what you've said would only be the case if the box was a totally closed system. Schroedinger's Cat is just a metaphor to help people understand QM.

The way I understand it, the act of "observation" is poorly named. The act of recording data on a hard drive or sending it over network is an observation, and would collapse the qubit.

I think there were some experiments in cryptography not too long ago that found you can only send uncollapsed photons a short distance through the atmosphere before they collapse through interactions with air molecules. It didn't need a human observer, just an interaction with something else that required a collapse to determine its result.

David

 

[Lucianarchy]

Since you (again) refuse to give proper references, I found the page myself.

claus, I had already given you the URL last time you asked, but good to see you can do some things for yourself, if you want to.[/b]

Please clarify:

• On what criteria were the experiments selected?
• Did the experiments use the same design and protocol?
• Were the number generators all true random generators, yes or no?

[/B]

Before we go any further, let's establish something. If the answers are all 'yes' ; do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Do you think meta analysis of lots of poor experiments is better than one proper study? or as the site says "Whether that "something" is something interesting (e.g., paranormal) depends on an analysis of the tightness of the experimental protocols."

Well of course. Can you set some criteria, measurable values, as to what that standard actually means to you? Otherwise, as with everything else, the pseudo-skeptic just bins everything which they don't agree with using subjective prejudices.

 

[Lothian]

Orginally posted by CFLarson
On what criteria were the experiments selected?

Before we go any further, let's establish something. If the answers are all 'yes' ; do you ....? [/B]

I somehow doubt they are all yes so there is no point going any further.

 

[Lothian]

Well of course.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well of course. Can you set some criteria, measurable values, as to what that standard actually means to you? Otherwise, as with everything else, the pseudo-skeptic just bins everything which they don't agree with using subjective prejudices.

You simply don't understand anything, do you?

Before we go any further, let's establish something. If the answers are all 'yes' ; do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

They cannot all be "yes" (check the first question).

If we had a replicable phenomenon, that - when tested by the same design and protocol, including a true random generator, then - we'd have a true phenomenon, which we could study.

Would the phenomenon be of a paranormal kind? Far from. Just because we don't understand a phenomenon doesn't mean it is paranormal. By that logic, electricity would be considered paranormal 300 years ago.

Now, I answered your question. Please answer mine.

 

[Ed]

Well of course. Can you set some criteria, measurable values, as to what that standard actually means to you? Otherwise, as with everything else, the pseudo-skeptic just bins everything which they don't agree with using subjective prejudices.

No. By definition a bad study tells you little if anything.

 

[flyboy217]

Is the "let's see you change a stream of zeroes into ones" argument over? Because I was going to compare it to asking someone with a die covered in 6s to roll a 5. The RNG thing is actually like asking someone with a die with three 1s and three 6s to roll more 1s. The first example is impossible by definition, but the second is possible, just unlikely.

Nice analogy. I think they've dropped it by now.

Who says?

This is the interpretation of QM I am most familiar with. Recording, in general, does not necessarily constitute an observation. The qubit and its surroundings become entangled into a larger superposition.

I discussed in another topic not too long ago. I'm of the opinion that what you've said would only be the case if the box was a totally closed system. Schroedinger's Cat is just a metaphor to help people understand QM.

Certainly.

The way I understand it, the act of "observation" is poorly named. The act of recording data on a hard drive or sending it over network is an observation, and would collapse the qubit.

I think there were some experiments in cryptography not too long ago that found you can only send uncollapsed photons a short distance through the atmosphere before they collapse through interactions with air molecules. It didn't need a human observer, just an interaction with something else that required a collapse to determine its result.

David

As far as I know, the only reason "observation" is poorly named is because it's not at all understood. We have no way of describing precisely what should constitute an observation.

But yes, the 'noise' argument is valid. I mentioned this point earlier. For the most part, the superposition is very easily ruined by channel noise. To believe that the qubit could maintain it after being stored on a hard drive is pretty ridiculous. But I'm still not sure it constitutes an actual collapse of the qubit.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ed]

Do you think the overall score for the Bierman database is what you could reasonably expect by chance?

Hahahahaha. Sterling example of life in the world of woo:

Bierman sez:

Bierman comments "Remark that one of the most remarkable findings is the incredible variance in z-scores. Just try it out for yourself (take the sum of z-squares which should be chi^2 distributed)."

Wow! Incredible varience! Maybe cuz there is no control or that there is no vbasis for comparing the experiments. Utter crap.

Also, by my precise calculations (aided by Mr. William Gates I might add) the mean z=0.1256 but as I have mentioned ad nauseum, this is meaningless.

n.b. Luci, if you check out the stuff you post first to separate the good from the bad, as I am sure you do, would you mind for a chuckle to share some of the "bad" research that did not pass your quality muster?

 

[davidhorman]

Nice analogy. I think they've dropped it by now.

Well, that was just Claus, and if there is a "they" I'm probably one of "them".

As far as I know, the only reason "observation" is poorly named is because it's not at all understood.

It's poorly named because it implies that you need an observer.

David