Meaning derived from RNGs and market prediction

[warpus]

I don't think anyone is proposing a mechanism.

...

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.

That is what I mean by mechanism - It seems that they have proposed one. It should be possibly to test their hypothesis by doing more than just looking at the random data - then.

Either way sounds like a shot in the dark, but why not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

I'm not actually sure of that. I thought that at the first look at the data, but I think they are just citing variation from the norm of a hundred as anomalous without regard to direction. A total of ten being just as far from statistically expected result as a result of 190 is. There doesn't seem to be any claim of a correlation between direction and "good or bad" event. Though I did think I saw it somewhere in the presentation the first time through so maybe they are.

By the way..."quantum" is still close to the borderlines of an undefined term, so unless you operate at or near the cutting edge of the field, which I do not claim to, it is always going to be pretty much meaningless jargon. So feel free to tell me what you have learned from your particle accelerator, or your quantum tunneling devices. It's good to know that someone who is in a position to be so strongly confident about the material under analysis is gracing our forum.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That is what I mean by mechanism - It seems that they have proposed one. It should be possibly to test their hypothesis by doing more than just looking at the random data - then.

Either way sounds like a shot in the dark, but why not.

I have no idea what is involved in a RNG that operates by quantum tunneling. If you could maybe stick one up against someone's head, maybe? The thing is these random number generators are the only device I've heard of that aren't just responding to the information they are intentionally being fed, so they would seem to be the only current opportunity to look for "unknown" influences.

I also don't see any way to exclude other unknown influences. If they had so much data that I was absolutely convinced that "normal" randomness could not account for it my next thought would be "what about solar activity?" and probably a half dozen other possible sources of influence that seem at least as plausible if not more so. But ya gotta start somewhere.

If they can produce hard to argue with evidence that something is happening that will be an interesting development.

EDIT: Wow. So some interesting skimming around on the subject of quantum tunneling RNGs makes this all far more interesting. What happens if these guys actually prove that something can influence these devices? Subject to influence is the first step down the road to predictability, and if these devices become predictable apparently all of modern cryptography becomes annulled, because it is currently all based on the ability of these devices to produce a genuinely random number. Now I see how this line of research might have gotten started at Princeton. The whole 'mass consciousness' thing seemed a little out there for them.

 

[s0nny80y]

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

I think she summed it up best,
with hot flushes.