oh boy....

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html

--- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html

I was at one point brought into face-to-face discussions with some of
these EGG people, with the idea that we'd be discussing interesting
topics in physics and philosophy. Well, it started out that way, but
ended up very much as a way of scamming me out of a lot of money
(thankfully I didn't let that happen). Not implicating anyone of
anything, just saying, "be cautious" . . .

Well, it started out that way, but
> ended up very much as a way of scamming me out of a lot of
money

Scamming or looking for handouts (ie funding) to continue
their research. Scamming has a specific connotation to me
of deceiving and deception, versus the begging that most
academic researchers are forced to do.

It seems important to me because you can't run a project
like this without integrity.

On the other hand one can only notice the fact that there
were a number of people who didn't die Sept. 11 because of
misplaced car keys, late flights, staying home with a sick
kid etc. And there were others who had moved into the 105
floor of the WTC, North Tower, only weeks before from
midtown offices. Although it is easy to say its all random
and a "biased" sample (you don't hear as much from those who
didn't forget their keys) something like the EGG project
does have the potential to reshape the way we think about
random events in the physics of this reality (as long as it
is being conducted correctly)

Mary

I'm less interested in their fundraising tactics than I am in someone with
expertise in statistics commenting on their findings.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Erlich [mailto:paul@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:26 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: oh boy....
>
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html
>
> I was at one point brought into face-to-face discussions with some of
> these EGG people, with the idea that we'd be discussing interesting
> topics in physics and philosophy. Well, it started out that way, but
> ended up very much as a way of scamming me out of a lot of money
> (thankfully I didn't let that happen). Not implicating anyone of
> anything, just saying, "be cautious" . . .
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html
>
> I was at one point brought into face-to-face discussions with some
of
> these EGG people, with the idea that we'd be discussing interesting
> topics in physics and philosophy. Well, it started out that way, but
> ended up very much as a way of scamming me out of a lot of money
> (thankfully I didn't let that happen). Not implicating anyone of
> anything, just saying, "be cautious" . . .

So they set random number generators up around the world and analyze
the deviation from the expected distribution and then attempt to find
some correlation with world events. Cute. Except common random number
generators aren't random. They are strictly deterministic, unless they
have done some clever engineering to perturb some sensitive system.
Sounds like wishful thinking on their part. Let me guess...phychology
department?

John Starrett

> So they set random number generators up around the world and
analyze
> the deviation from the expected distribution and then attempt to
find
> some correlation with world events. Cute. Except common random
number
> generators aren't random. They are strictly deterministic, unless
they
> have done some clever engineering to perturb some sensitive system.

This is from the link that XJ gave. It seems the group is a lttle
ore sophisticated than using pseudorandom generators.

Since 1998, the Global Consciousness Project at Princeton University
has been monitoring the outputs of up to 40 random number generators
(RNGs) around the world. Each of these RNGs sends 200 bits of
randomly generated data every second to a server at the GCP in
Princeton. The generators are based on physical devices considered
fundamentally random, not merely deterministic computer algorithms

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/randomness.htm

Again, like Dante, I would be very interested in any of the math
brains here actually reading their statistical tests and commenting
on them, since the crux of their argument is completely derived from
their probability results.

Mary

[Mary said:]

> This is from the link that XJ gave. It seems the group is a
> lttle ore sophisticated than using pseudorandom generators.

> Since 1998, the Global Consciousness Project at Princeton
> University has been monitoring the outputs of up to 40 random
> number generators (RNGs) around the world. Each of these RNGs
> sends 200 bits of randomly generated data every second to a
> server at the GCP in
> Princeton. The generators are based on physical devices
> considered fundamentally random, not merely deterministic
> computer algorithms

Yes -- most likely they are using some amplifiers set
up to generate wide-band noise, then being digitally
sampled with one or more bits in some fashion. If so,
it's definitly not algorithmic.

Though depending on how they are engineered, they could
be sensitive to changes in some form of electromagnetic
energy. For example, depending on the design, they
could be affected by a large number of cellphone calls
being placed... or by some odd minute change in the
ambient e-m energy of the room the device is in.
Depending on the sensitivity, perhaps it could be
related in some novel way to changes in the stress
levels of people in the area. All the possibilities
should be looked at very carefully.

- J

--- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
<snip>
> So they set random number generators up around the world and analyze
> the deviation from the expected distribution and then attempt to
find
> some correlation with world events. Cute. Except common random
number
> generators aren't random. They are strictly deterministic, unless
they
> have done some clever engineering to perturb some sensitive system.
> Sounds like wishful thinking on their part. Let me
guess...phychology
> department?
>
> John Starrett

Having now read more on their technique, I realize they are using
something approaching random number generation, that has some
sensitivity to electric fields. I retract some of my sarcasm, but not
much of my disbelief.

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
<snip>
> Though depending on how they are engineered, they could
> be sensitive to changes in some form of electromagnetic
> energy. For example, depending on the design, they
> could be affected by a large number of cellphone calls
> being placed... or by some odd minute change in the
> ambient e-m energy of the room the device is in.
> Depending on the sensitivity, perhaps it could be
> related in some novel way to changes in the stress
> levels of people in the area. All the possibilities
> should be looked at very carefully.
>
> - J

Good point. I would like to see the output during other well known
tragedies also for comparison.

John Starrett

John said

I retract some of my sarcasm, but not
much of my disbelief.

That is probably why I am pushing this a bit here, because it seems
that if their results are true you have one of those "paradigm
shifts' in scientific thinking.

I think XJ points are excellent, that electromagentic fields from
humans or machines could be affecting the results. But you are still
left with the same puzzling result - that the changes started
happening before the events were known.

So my plea to the brilliant scientific brains in this forum is could
you use your knowledge to pick these statistics apart? I f there
is "no way this could be true" shouldn't you be able to show that
their math is wrong? Somehow it seems at least as important as
dissecting schismatic commas :-)

Peace,
Mary

Mary

--- In metatuning@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:
> Well, it started out that way, but
> > ended up very much as a way of scamming me out of a lot of
> money
>
> Scamming or looking for handouts (ie funding) to continue
> their research.

Not at all the latter. Definitely the former.

> Scamming has a specific connotation to me
> of deceiving and deception, versus the begging that most
> academic researchers are forced to do.

Absolutely.

--- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> I'm less interested in their fundraising tactics than I am in
someone with
> expertise in statistics commenting on their findings.

What kind of comment are you looking for?

--- In metatuning@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:

> Again, like Dante, I would be very interested in any of the math
> brains here actually reading their statistical tests and commenting
> on them, since the crux of their argument is completely derived
from
> their probability results.

Well, if you believe the data, then certainly they are using valid
statistical inference in saying that some very unlikely things
happened at the points of time in question. So . . . ?

--- In metatuning@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:

> So my plea to the brilliant scientific brains in this forum is
could
> you use your knowledge to pick these statistics apart? I f there
> is "no way this could be true" shouldn't you be able to show that
> their math is wrong?

Mary, their math is probably right, but there's no way to know if the
_data_ is truth or fiction. The standard approach would be for
several other scientific groups to set up the same type of
experiments, and see if they observe the same patterns. Until this
kind of validation takes place, I'm going to have to put this in
the "cold fusion" category in my mind.

" shouldn't you be able to show that
The standard approach would be for
> several other scientific groups to set up the same type of
> experiments, and see if they observe the same patterns. Until this
> kind of validation takes place, I'm going to have to put this in
> the "cold fusion" category in my mind.

OK that seems fair enough. And certainly I understand your suspicion
that if they were attempting to collect funds fraudently that perhaps
they do the same with their data.

Sounds like replication is the next step.

Mary

[John:]

> Good point. I would like to see the output during other well
> known tragedies also for comparison.

Another possibility would be minute fluctuations in the
power supply. If an analog to digital converter is
involved in sampling the random signal, it will be
extremely sensitive to its bias voltage. It's
conceivable that (depending on the design) that
the power could have fluctuated due to lots of
people getting phone calls and then running
and turning on millions of TVs throughout the
world simultaneously.

The real thing to look at is what exactly are
they measuring and exactly how are they measuring
it.

- J

[Mary:]

> the changes started
> happening before the events were known.

Oh!!!

I missed that subtle point.

Wow.

I'll have to look at that article again.

That does make a huge difference.

Wait a minute though, if the data is
being collected through the net as they
said, how do we know that all the clocks
on the computers collecting and sending
the data were synchronized?

- J