Meaning derived from RNGs and market prediction

[s0nny80y]

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ plus markets (correlation maybe?)

Random number generators (RNGs) based on quantum tunneling produce completely unpredictable sequences of zeroes and ones. But when a great event synchronizes the feelings of millions of people, our network of RNGs becomes subtly structured.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_D._Nelson

 

[nc-1701]

Technopsychobabble

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wow. Sixteen years of collected data. Hard to dismiss.

 

[Hygro]

What this is saying is that things that seem random aren't quite random and when enough agents are involved it trends toward some level of centropy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I find it an intriguing experiment, but so far, it seems to be inconclusive.
Just read the criticism on the wikipedia page. At occasions it may have looked like the deviations supported the ideas of the project, but it has not been established that they couldn't also be the result of random deviation just as well.
A main problem seems to be that the project lacks a clear idea of what should cause what. Which opens the doors wide open for making the use of the data suit a vague conclusion.

What this is saying is that things that seem random aren't quite random and when enough agents are involved it trends toward some level of centropy.

I take it you mean Gaussian distribution?

 

[Hygro]

I take it you mean Gaussian distribution?

My first response was to say not quite, but now I'm not so sure. But a Gaussian distribution can come from totally random placements and what I mean is something less than random.

 

[nc-1701]

What this is saying is that things that seem random aren't quite random and when enough agents are involved it trends toward some level of centropy.

My interpretation was that if you stare at Brownian Motion long enough a person will start ascribing meaning to its meanderings. So it does say something about psychology I suppose, but only in a very meta sort of way.

 

[Mise]

It's like the men who stare at goats. That was a good film.

 

[warpus]

We hypothesize that there will be structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events that engage our minds and hearts.

So.. why exactly should random data be tied to our minds and hearts?

How do these RNGs work? What am I missing?

So far this reads to me like wishy washy mumbo jumbo (but I could just be missing something)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So.. why exactly should random data be tied to our minds and hearts?

How do these RNGs work? What am I missing?

So far this reads to me like wishy washy mumbo jumbo (but I could just be missing something)

There seems to be an association in their hypothesis between ones and "positive" events and zeroes and "negative" events, which I don't really follow.

They add a sequence of 200 random bits and compare the total to 100. For this total to be far off from 100 is a statistical oddity. For a significant fraction of their seventy random number generators around the world to be far off from 100 in samples drawn at the same time is a strong statistical anomaly. So if these anomalies occur consistently in conjunction with world events their hypothesis is supported.

Their data includes such events as natural disasters, announcements of invasions, plane crashes, and the like on the negative side, and things like opening ceremonies at the Olympics and such as positives. The basic idea being that the widespread anxiety or feelings of good will spread across millions of people is affecting reality at the quantum level, thus showing up in their quantum tunneling based RNGs.

I'm not leaping on any bandwagons, but their methodology looks solid at first brush. They have a literal mountain (make that a good sized planet) of data. Second brush my first question is that they don't say how often these anomalies occur without any corresponding world events, and I'm not sifting through fifteen years of output from seventy random number generators to find out. Ultimately it comes down to "this is Princeton" on the one hand and "this influencing reality on the quantum level sounds suspiciously like magic" on the other.

 

[Borachio]

This looks like hocus pocus to me. Divination by RNG?

It's like the men who stare at goats. That was a good film.

Yeah, I remember that. One of my all-time favourite films.

People really are nuts, aren't they?

But, at some point, don't we have to say "Now, hang on just a minute. Let's think about this"?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This looks like hocus pocus to me. Divination by RNG?





Yeah, I remember that. One of my all-time favourite films.

People really are nuts, aren't they?

But, at some point, don't we have to say "Now, hang on just a minute. Let's think about this"?

I didn't see any divination in it. Divination would be practical if practicable, but the only thing I could see this actually doing is driving some sort of world girdling mood ring.

That said, the 'observer influences the event' effect has been a staple of science fiction, and like all staples of science fiction sooner or later science will try to figure it out. If they can really convincingly demonstrate that the 'planetary mood' does affect events at the quantum level in these random number generators it does open a Pandora's box of questions about how affecting events on the quantum level in your brain is going to affect you, and so forth.

 

[Kozmos]

I think they need a few hundred thousands years more of data.

 

[nc-1701]

So.. why exactly should random data be tied to our minds and hearts?

How do these RNGs work? What am I missing?

So far this reads to me like wishy washy mumbo jumbo (but I could just be missing something)

They have a page about how there RNGs work, it looks like they use physical values as a source of "white noise" run through enough proper filters. So an example would be using very high precision trailing digits in the temperature changes in the processor of the machine doing the calculations. Presumably this actually does produce random data so I have no real issue with that as a way of producing random values... Although it does demonstrate just how silly their claim of effect is.

...Or it would if they didn't keep saying "quantum tunneling" for no reason

I'm not leaping on any bandwagons, but their methodology looks solid at first brush. They have a literal mountain (make that a good sized planet) of data. Second brush my first question is that they don't say how often these anomalies occur without any corresponding world events, and I'm not sifting through fifteen years of output from seventy random number generators to find out. Ultimately it comes down to "this is Princeton" on the one hand and "this influencing reality on the quantum level sounds suspiciously like magic" on the other.

It would be pretty simple to create everything they've created "by chance", after all the choice of "important events" is pretty much arbitrary right? As is the choice of representative second as many of those events lasted much longer than a second. Just by manipulating that a little bit you can easily create very high amounts of apparent "significance" out of random data.
It is easy to imagine such biases sneaking in even if the researchers weren't being intentionally misleading..

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think they need a few hundred thousands years more of data.

There looks to be a much greater need for doing more with the data they have than there is for collecting more data. Stop to consider how many ones and zeros a RNG spits out over fifteen years. I think I saw in there somewhere that they are taking a 200 bit sample once per second, and discarding the vast majority of the output to start with, but that still gives them tens of thousands of samples per day for each RNG.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They have a page about how there RNGs work, it looks like they use physical values as a source of "white noise" run through enough proper filters. So an example would be using very high precision trailing digits in the temperature changes in the processor of the machine doing the calculations. Presumably this actually does produce random data so I have no real issue with that as a way of producing random values... Although it does demonstrate just how silly their claim of effect is.

...Or it would if they didn't keep saying "quantum tunneling" for no reason

Well, they can't look for quantum level effects if they use some other type of RNG, so I'll give them that part.

It would be pretty simple to create everything they've created "by chance", after all the choice of "important events" is pretty much arbitrary right? As is the choice of representative second as many of those events lasted much longer than a second. Just by manipulating that a little bit you can easily create very high amounts of apparent "significance" out of random data.
It is easy to imagine such biases sneaking in even if the researchers weren't being intentionally misleading..

No doubt. Like I said, while it looks solid at first brush there are a lot of questions to be asked about their methodology. How do they choose a 'representative' second? Or are they using a combined resultant based on a span of seconds? And as I said, how often do these anomalies occur when there is no corresponding event?

They are defining an 'anomaly' based on pretty standard probability theory, similar to "yes that dealer could randomly get blackjack ten hands in a row out of an eight deck shoe...but the fact that it could happen doesn't mean that he isn't cheating so he's fired". There really shouldn't be vast numbers of such odd anomalies to 'account for', but I still think they need to set up real time second by second analysis of their data stream rather than the current 'pick an event and check for an anomaly' approach. Expense being a limiting factor though, probably.

Their choices of events seem to be based more on scope than actual importance. Their hypothesis has to do with "mass consciousness", where significant numbers of people are sharing the same general experience. So something hugely important that only affects limited numbers of people wouldn't relate.

I think it's an interesting approach, and I can't think of any other way to test their hypothesis. Observing thousands of quantum level events certainly isn't something I do in my spare time.

 

[warpus]

Thanks to those who responded to my inquiries.

My next question is this - what mechanism do these people propose is driving what they theorize is happening? If random events are affected by our hearts and minds, what phenomenon is behind the scenes causing this to happen?

I haven't seen this explained on their site, but I already missed the other explanation that was pointed out to me, so I could very well be missing this as well.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I suspect it's going to turn out to be midichlorians.

One would want to be especially on the alert in this case for the researchers (unconsciously) reading into the data the results they're looking for. That's because the null hypothesis would in this case be so grindingly boring: "Yep, it looks like there's no connection between heightened levels of shared consciousness worldwide and the numbers that random number generators generate, just as one would imagine. But thanks for your millions in research grants just the same."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thanks to those who responded to my inquiries.

My next question is this - what mechanism do these people propose is driving what they theorize is happening? If random events are affected by our hearts and minds, what phenomenon is behind the scenes causing this to happen?

I haven't seen this explained on their site, but I already missed the other explanation that was pointed out to me, so I could very well be missing this as well.

I don't think anyone is proposing a mechanism. They are mostly just going from the observation that a whole lot of currently inexplicable things happen when you start observing at the quantum level. It does approach the mythical boundaries where the medium storing information becomes hard to distinguish from the information itself.

With magnetic tape it is really easy to say that this tape was tape before information was recorded on it, but storing, or in the case of a RNG creating, information in a quantum device is in some aspects actually producing the storage media in the course of storing the information. It comes suspiciously close "it is there because I say so" or the paper just appearing in front of the pen, so to speak.

So you get this question about how information is bounded. Is the information stored in the electro-chemical engine in your head actually confined there, or does it flow through the underlying quantum substrate common to all matter into the surroundings? To the best of my knowledge (which is in no way extensive) no one is ready to answer that question with strong confidence. These guys are looking for evidence that it does. If they find it, good on them.

 

[nc-1701]

Another pretty damning thing here... (if the whole spectacle wasn't already damning itself) is the fact that positive and negative was an arbitrary assignment to bits made by the researchers. Which they then connect to positive and negative events in the world.

TimSup2Nothin - Quantum in the sense they (and you) are using it is just meaningless jargon, and is really not differentiable from just saying midicholrians.

Basically the hypothesis is this:
When certain events that affect many people happen this changes the random temperature variations in computer chips slightly.