The following is a posts on the EnergeticMedicine Group at yahoogroups.com
by Kiran Schmidt on the use of Pseudo Random and Noise Random
Event Generators in bioenergetic testing.
Hello G., Group
Do you remember the
Butterfly-Effect.... I am sure you do it is by now common place and thousand
fold copied, it is stating "The flap of a Butterfly in Brazil can set off
a Tornado in Texas"..... sounds good.....but where is this understanding
coming from? It is derived from a Paper by Lorenz in 1979 in which he first
showed that a certain group of simple mathematical formula can give extremely
different results even when changing its factors only in a minute way.....
from this purely mathematical phenomenon now thousands of people in blind
faith have made the deductive quantum leap to say "that what is true for
a specific formula must certainly be true also in nature" thus came
about the myth of the Butterfly-effect (I call it the
Blind-faith-in-Math-effect). In reality in a healthy world something like that
can not happen because one "the world does not behave like a simple
formula" and two "luckily there are enough neutralizing forces
at work that prevent us to feel the effect of some person somewhere in the
world flushing his toilet". (In fact it will and can happen more the more
we have a cultural and biological monoculture.... but that's another topic)
So why are am telling
this story where we are actually talking about the "pseudo random versus
"real" random generator" effect? One, because I already see
advertising headlines going about like that: "12 years of scientific
study at Princeton University have proven that remedy testing and treatment at
a distance are now established facts".... in fact nothing would be
further from the truth. How I, maybe you or others use Random Event
Generators of whatever kind to test and to treat in a virtual way is far
beyond anything that has been tried to be rigorously proven by any department
of established science. What this Princeton Study has however exclusively and
rigorously proven is that by allowing a test person to determine the time when
to start a REG (Random Event Generator) the results will mirror the task given
to the person of either directing the events towards plus or down towards
minus. This extraordinary fact, and this alone, has been proven by this study
within reasonable statistical probability. This effect cannot be explained by
any established model in science today.
As to the technical
question whether these results can be obtained equally with a pseudo-random or
"noise"-random generator you have stated that newer findings have
proven that: "For the strictly deterministic sources
#1 and #2, however, no such correlations are observed." First
I would like to get the exact reference where this finding is stated and if it
is stated in this absolute way,..... second I would say if this is the case it
would cast serious doubt on the whole project and its result-reporting.
In the book version on
page 122 and 123 graphs are given which compare pseudo and noise and they are
strikingly similar and the terminal Probability for this to happen by chance
are given with between 0.003 and 0.081, which means basically impossible if
you compound the probability that this resemblance could happen just by chance
in all these cases. If you look at table D these findings are based on the
summary of several hundred thousand trials..... what has changed that
according to your private correspondence with them they are now
considering these findings as not correct?
Yes, there are some
differences, and this is only to be expected, but would this make the fact
that there is a significant deviation from chance expectation (in every
and any case) less striking.... obviously not ! In fact they summarize
the findings of this chapter as follows "These similarities further
incline towards the second of the two hypotheses posed above regarding the
mechanics of the anomalous interaction; namely, that the effect seems to function
at the systemic informational level, rather than invading the physical
processes of any given component."
This is also the way
these anomalies would be described in the CoRe-Model as these effects belong
predominantly to the coincidental - realm... which means they are understood
not as the effect of any cause what so ever not even the intention of the test
person.... on an informational level these effects and the test person are
connected invariant of their spatial and temporal coordination (sorry for the
very rigid language).
Also from a
more philosophical point of view the idea of a "real"-random process
can in fact only be an abstraction based on the point of view and
informational background of the observer. Stephen Wolfram shows this in a
very rigorous way for electrical signals on page 130 of his "A new
kind of science" that even the most arbitrary waveforms can be
deduced from the most simple deterministic rules..... this means the
most arbitrary really is that which has no structure or pattern whatsoever
recognizable with any search algorithm of whatever kind and that in fact does
not exist to Wolfram or paradoxically the most arbitrary is also the most
uniform, a perfectly grey peace of paper for example.... please ponder about
it,,,, it's really not so simple.
But now again more
practically this question is really only of much importance if one is
seeing the world through one's cause-and-effect goggles..... then it is
obviously an insurmountable obstacle how a pre-determined process could give
any answer to a specific question.... but here the problem does not lie in the
facts but in the expectation with which the question is asked..... I would say
with you that random processes are not the most meaningless but the most
Meaning-Full things we can encounter "All truth lays in all things as
Walt Whitman used to say", .......the question is how do you extract this
meaning.
And in the CoRe-Model the
real question is in order to get Synchronistic-Phenomena in an
as-pure-as-possible form the choice is not between predetermined or not but
between a process that is as free of causative effects as possible and
one that is less so. If the pseudo-random generator would in fact run without
the ability of the operator to start the process at a given time according to
his own choice it would indeed be totally causalistic but this is not the
case. And is the noise-source totally free of physical laws, naturally not, in
fact it is a incredibly more simple mechanism than a test person and from this
point of view will produce much more predictable output. Obviously both are
beyond our present computational powers, but from a conceptional point of view
just the opposite is the case of what you would assume based on intuition
alone.
Just as an example of the
predictive power of the CoRe-Model I would in fact expect that you would get
even better synchronistic results if you would disturb the test person
as much as possible while he is pressing his start button at intervals, this
would even imbalance causalistic influences like brainwave rhythms or
heartbeat frequency and so on... do you get the picture..... in actual fact
they tried to make the test person as comfortable and undisturbed as possible
because the initial working model was that his attention is what is
influencing the process...... and again you can see the parallel with real
life experience.... you will see and experience more coincidences the more
your life is out of balance..... this is when you see the hand of god or the
incredible connectedness of so many things..... and less so when you want
to make your life waterproof against any kind of unexpected events.
greetings
Kiran
PS: thank you Rob its
good to get some appreciation
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: [EnergeticMedicine] random Kiran
Dear Kiran,
Now that I'm "back in the saddle again"
(albeit rather jet lagged), I wanted to take a little closer look at one of
your earlier comments - on June 3 you stated:
Now
this was strange to me and indicated that he even had not read thoroughly
the book he was basing his technology on. On page 121 it says
"The results obtained using this device (a pseudo random source) are
strikingly similar to those achieved with the random source (the white noise
diode).... so why would he go through the extra trouble to incorporate
something that makes no difference? Therefore, I would say to G. that in
the Dunne/Jahn model it was just one of the possible influencing
factors which was found to be negligible and not a core element.
I
believe there may be an oversight here. As I had preveiously
mentioned, in the past I have enjoyed a fruitful period of direct
communication with the lab at Princeton and corresponded directly with
Brenda Dunne concerning several matters including the one to which you
refer.
The
specific topic of "device dependence" is one that has received
much attention and generated significant opinion and conclusion - "real
random event generation" processes and "pseudo random number
generation" processes are NOT equivalent or "srtikingly
similar" - perhaps a more thorough reading of the text or more
importantly a review of specific research papers would have helped to make
this point more clear
I
point this out not to find fault in your presentation of ideas (which I have
found provocative and promising) but rather to help any and all of us "learning
out loud" in this group to build a more clear appreciation in this
important topic - I personally have always thought that the word
"random" as in "random event generation" lent itself to
the "meaningless" as you so well point out in other of your
postings - instead of "random event generation" I have always
thought of it as "unlimited choice generation" meaning that it
holds no predetermined bias of any sort - consequently any significant
devaition from a neutral statistical norm offers evidence of an influence of
undisclosed nature and/or origin
In
a paper by R. Jahn, B. Dunne, R. Nelson, Y. Dobyns and G. Bradish
(Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention;
A Review of a 12-Year Program), the subject of device dependence was well
explored and conclusions were presented which state essentially that a
"real random event generation" process and a "pseudo random
number generation" process were NOT the same
To
quote the paper in small part: "The sensitivity of anomalous
correlations to the particular random source employed or to its form of
implementation into an experimental device has been extensively explored via
a variety of machines and protocols. In the simplest variants, the
commercial microelectronic noise diode in the benchmark configuration was
replaced by identical and similar units, with no detectable changes in the
character of the results." Here we see that a
"real/physical random event generation" process is preserved with
the use of actual random microelectronic noise generating devices
The
paper continues: "In a more substantial and, as it turned out, more
critical set of modifications, the physical noise source was replaced by
three distinctly different pseudorandom sources:
1)
A pseudorandom-number generating algorithm included in the Borland Turbo
Basic programming package was implemented on an IBM AT-286 computer to
provide binary strings that could be counted and displayed in the same
formats as the benchmark experiments. More specifically, the
floating-point numbers provided by theBorland function, which distribute
uniformly over the interval of 0 to 1, were converted into bits by assigning
1 to all values above 0.5 and 0 to all values below or equal to 0.5.
The initiating seeds were obtained by starting a microsecond clock when the
operator prompts first appeared on the screen, and stopping it when the
operators responded by pressing a key. The accumulated values were
then added to the number of seconds since midnight to compund the seeds.
In performing these experiments, the operators had the options of digital,
digital cumulative, or graphical cumulative deviation displays on the
monitor, akin to those available on the benchmark version.
2)
The benchmark equipment was modified to allow replacement of the Elgenco
noise source by a hard-wired electronic shift register containing 31
flip-flops comprising a sequence length of over 2 X 10 to the sixth steps.
This generator produced strictly deterministic sequences from the same
initial seed that, at a sampling rate of 1000Hz, recycled roughly every 60
hours, far exceeding the length of any single experimental session.
From the operator's perspective, all other aspects of the protocol, machine
operation, and feedback display were identical to those of the benchmark
expreiments (meaning the person involved inthe expreiment had no way of
knowing that there was a different device being used)
3)
A random element was overlaid on the pseudorandom processor just described
by introducing an asynchronous shift frequency for the register, drivenby an
analog element that swept from a few kHz to a few tens of kHz over a period
of several minutes. This unpredictable component of the sampling
imbued the device with a complex combination of random and pseudorandom
characteristics.
As
discussed..., when source #3, which retains some physically random features,
is utilized, statistically significant correlations of results with operator
intention, comparable to those sen in the benchmark experiments, continue to
appear. For the strictly deterministic sources #1 and #2, however, no
such correlations are observed."
Basically,
in a paper reviewing 12 years of experience, the Princeton lab has
determined that pseudo random number generation does NOT match the behavior
of real/physical random generation processes as determined by their ongoing
experimentation. Hence, if one gives any validity to the Princeton
work (which is the most authoritative, hard, and enduring experiment in this
field) then one must conclude that pseudo random generation processes are
not reliable means for creating and amassing evidence for statistical
pattern analysis - real/physical random event generation, regardless of its
type appears to be required for a faithful and unbiased sourcing of
statistical deviation and pattern significance
In
light of this information, it is my opinion that devices that uitlize pseudo
random number generation to create statistical analyses are weakened in
their capacity to act in an unbiased, non-determined and "open
minded" fashion - on screen displays can occur which appear valid to
the viewer but the degree and quality of the information is in fact reduced
- this is not to say pseudo random generation has no validity at all but
rather that its reliability is significantly if not dramatically reduced in
comparison to the real/physical random event generation
Pseudo
random number generation is simple and inexpensive to achieve - there are
numerous software programs which can be utilized to create them and weave
them into application with wonderful on screen displays - because there is
no actual real/physical event generation taking place, there are no limits
to the process except your processor speed in your computer - the
"event" is in fact not an"event" at all but rather a
simple "abstraction" of event - it is basically like pretending to
have a party but not actually having one and then trying to make an analysis
of how much fun you had if it had really happened - to the unsuspecting, it
may seem like you had actually had a real/physical party with actual
reactions and responses to the event - sorry, the party never happened..it
was "as if" a party happened
Pseudo
random generation processes are useful in things like hypothesizing changes
in an economy or in the growth rate of a forest or population - here there
is no interest in using the statistical behaviors to tease out evidence of
subtle influences - they just want to grind out numbers and watch where they
drift
In
uses such as at Princeton where the subtle influences of intention are
recorded, pseudo random number generation is ineffective and unreliable - it
is my position and opinion that this also holds true in the area of subtle
testing as developed in "energetic medicine" - the basic principle
(as I understand it) is that the statistical behavior of real/physical
random genertaion behavior is well known - any deviation from this behavior
is evidence of an influence - the nature and/or mechanisms of this influence
need not be recognized - what is important is that the evidence of the
influence is made obvious in the information gathered from the real/physical
random event generation - beyond that one may design numerous protocols to
accumulate, analyse, repeat, restrict, pattern or value the information -
what is parmount is that the generation source itself is in fact unbiased
and non-deterministic
In
a nutshell, even though it is easy to use, "pseudo random number
generation" is not reliable for the purposes of subtle "energetic
medicine" processes - "real/physical random event generation"
processes are necessary to create the basis for statistical, pattern
recognition of any design - you've got to have a real party to have real fun
be
well
G.
PS-
I may have missed Kiran's reply so I will ask again - by what means do you
encode the "signature of your many items? - this is a critical and
fundamental principle in all this category of device - there are numerous
methods - do you mind describing the manner in which you go about encoding
items? (you may regard this as proprietary information, in which case I
respect a more generalized response)
PSS
- please excuse any and all typo's - my jet lag is playing funny tricks on
me right now
| 