(2017-09-13, 06:17 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]jkmac, I admit that I have little to no skill-set in electronics, but have worked in the industry and have a conversational background and limited understanding. I am learning from your effort to bring Max back to the farm. Help me put your position in context.
In quantifying randomness are you referring to a Bernoulli Distribution?
In discussing "power quality" are you referring to wave forms in the "flow" of the current?
I would comment that randomness is not a physical property but an informational property. There are no SI units referring to randomness in materials or forces. Probability distributions are abstract and based on informational relations. Shannon's equations for mutual information can be seen as addressing any two variables, hence linking this to analysis as mutual information.
In quantifying randomness I am referring to the properties that the tester are using to specify randomness. In other words, it is not for me to define randomness. I am using whatever definition the statisticians say is appropriate. They have a formulaic method of determining to their own satisfaction the level of randomness being exhibited at any point in time. I am satisfied that they are competent in making these determinations.
I am focusing on the hardware and software and it's ability to satisfy their needs for random numbers.
snip- In discussing "power quality" are you referring to wave forms in the "flow" of the current?
I don't mean to be rude but your question is nonsensical. There is no such concept as "wave forms in the 'flow' of current".
But let me try to guess at your meaning and attempt to answer.
I am saying that line current can be measured at the point of use. And this should have a smooth sinusoidal waveform at either 50 or 60 hz and either 120 or 240 volts, depending on country.
Nothing is perfect, so the waveform will have some distortion (AKA noise) on it. Also the waveform may not be exactly 120/240 volts.
So the assertion has been, that at peak load times of the day there is also an associated decrease in voltage and an increase in noise. And the assertion continues that this "messy power" condition is causing changes in the randomness of the RNG.
I am just asking for evidence of the messy power condition, the type of noise, and to see the associated change in randomness of the RNG. If we had some of this info we could characterize the amount and type of power distortion needed to produce a particular effect, and we could use this information to design a system with clean enough power for the job, assuming there is an effect to solve in the first place. I am doubtful of this.
I hope this answers your question.
I think the explanation Max raises is demonstrably inadequate, even if we allow that power supply fluctuations can cause the output of individual RNGs to become less random, because this simply transfers the question from one phenomenon to another. In other words, the inexplicable phenomena is simply transferred from the question "Why is the randomness of this RNG negatively correlated with significant global consciousness events as predicted in prior hypotheses?" to "Why are fluctuations in the power supply correlated with significant global consciousness events so as to produce the (predicted) diminishment in the randomness of the RNG?"
So, that would be my question to you, Max: why, on your view, does the power supply's variability correlate with these events which are stipulated in advance in the hypotheses? Isn't that an equally paranormal or at least unexplained phenomenon?
And of course, Chris has pointed out that the fact that there are multiple RNGs in different countries using different power supplies whose outputs (the RNGs) are correlated with one another is even harder to account for on Max's theory.
Chris, please vet this post, because I haven't read any papers on or analyses of the experiments and I am talking based on what little I have picked up from reading this thread. Perhaps in bringing up individual RNGs I leave the domain of the GCP and enter the domain of less... well, global... experiments with RNGs.
As I mentioned to start with, one admirable feature of the GCP is that all the data are available through their website for anyone to re-analyse. The drawback is the sheer volume of the data, so I suspect very few people have gone beyond the most superficial examination of them. I think Peter Bancel has done by far the most, and he has said he initially approached it from a sceptical point of view.
There was an old Skeptiko podcast interview with Chris French, in which he expressed an interest in doing some work on the GCP (or in finding someone to do some work on it).
http://skeptiko.com/83-chris-french-psi-claims/
I'm not sure whether anything came of it. He was interested in developing objective criteria for events of interest, which might be one useful - and not too computationally expensive - approach. But if that didn't replicate the original results, it would be difficult to interpret. It would go against the "global consciousness" hypothesis, but not against the "experimenter psi" hypothesis. (Conversely, in principle experimenter psi could even come into play in the development of the "objective" criteria.)
(2017-09-14, 07:35 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I think the explanation Max raises is demonstrably inadequate, even if we allow that power supply fluctuations can cause the output of individual RNGs to become less random, because this simply transfers the question from one phenomenon to another. In other words, the inexplicable phenomena is simply transferred from the question "Why is the randomness of this RNG negatively correlated with significant global consciousness events as predicted in prior hypotheses?" to "Why are fluctuations in the power supply correlated with significant global consciousness events so as to produce the (predicted) diminishment in the randomness of the RNG?"
So, that would be my question to you, Max: why, on your view, does the power supply's variability correlate with these events which are stipulated in advance in the hypotheses? Isn't that an equally paranormal or at least unexplained phenomenon?
And of course, Chris has pointed out that the fact that there are multiple RNGs in different countries using different power supplies whose outputs (the RNGs) are correlated with one another is even harder to account for on Max's theory.
Chris, please vet this post, because I haven't read any papers on or analyses of the experiments and I am talking based on what little I have picked up from reading this thread. Perhaps in bringing up individual RNGs I leave the domain of the GCP and enter the domain of less... well, global... experiments with RNGs.
I think that's a good summary of the difficulties with suggestions about power fluctuations.
In the past some people have suggested that power usage might be untypical at the times of these global events. I suppose that might be the case if everyone was glued to their TVs (in the old days - Facebook and Twitter didn't exist when the GCP started!). But looking at the actual list of events I don't really find it plausible:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html
I think the harder thing to explain is that there is apparently a second-by-second correlation between these pairs of RNGs, and I can't see how that could arise even if the behaviour of the physical system generating the numbers did differ on these days.
Having said that, it is an extremely weak correlation, viewed on the level of the second-by-second output of a pair of RNGs. The end result is a very strong effect, but it took more than 500 events over a period of 17 years to accumulate. Perhaps there's some statistical fluke that is generating it. But in that case, why doesn't the same thing happen for the data that don't coincide with global events? It's a puzzle.
(2017-09-14, 11:41 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I've found plenty of stuff supporting the fact that these noise based RNG's are by their very nature affected by environmental noise.
That's a non-response, Max. I presented an argument to you which
assumed that you were correct about power supply fluctuations causing the output of individual RNGs to become less random. To then respond trying to justify what I've already allowed you is pointless, and avoids addressing the argument I made: that
even if we assume that you are correct, there is still an unexplained correlation.
(2017-09-14, 07:57 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I think that's a good summary of the difficulties with suggestions about power fluctuations.
In the past some people have suggested that power usage might be untypical at the times of these global events. I suppose that might be the case if everyone was glued to their TVs (in the old days - Facebook and Twitter didn't exist when the GCP started!). But looking at the actual list of events I don't really find it plausible:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html
I think the harder thing to explain is that there is apparently a second-by-second correlation between these pairs of RNGs, and I can't see how that could arise even if the behaviour of the physical system generating the numbers did differ on these days.
Having said that, it is an extremely weak correlation, viewed on the level of the second-by-second output of a pair of RNGs. The end result is a very strong effect, but it took more than 500 events over a period of 17 years to accumulate. Perhaps there's some statistical fluke that is generating it. But in that case, why doesn't the same thing happen for the data that don't coincide with global events? It's a puzzle.
Clearly Max isn't able to provide deeper insight, but rather just point to his favorite papers on the matter. So there we are...
Sheesh. Haven't I seen this movie before?
Does every thread have to devolve into tracking down a narrow objection raised by Max when he himself proves unwilling or unable to alter or broaden his view?
(2017-09-14, 12:23 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Sheesh. Haven't I seen this movie before?
Does every thread have to devolve into tracking down a narrow objection raised by Max when he himself proves unwilling or unable to alter or broaden his view?
That is exactly what I am thinking.
So for my part: I plan to point out the issue(s) I have, and ask for clarification in an attempt to discuss, and when deeper information or clarification stops coming, I move on,, and stop responding.
Max can have the last word if he wants. Well, actually,, it's usually just the same word he had already spoken on the last few previous posts.
(2017-09-14, 11:41 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Chris is simply wrong if he thinks XORing is some magic method of completely removing bias in noise-based RNG's, as Bancel's paper shows.
Just to be clear - perhaps you mean something different by bias, but what I mean is that the probability of the device producing a 0 is different from the probability of it producing a 1. With that definition, bias is necessarily removed by applying an XOR mask containing equal numbers of 0s and 1s, because exactly half the bits are thereby changed from 0 to 1 or vice versa. That means the probabilities have to become equal.
If you don't believe me, you can see that Bancel says the same thing:
"Theoretically, the RNGs output random 0 or 1 bits with equal probabilities. In real devices,
biases may occur due to component aging and other factors. Inherent device biases can
give rise to spurious correlations among the RNGs and they should be eliminated if
measured correlations are to be attributed to a GC effect. Accordingly, the devices employ
an XOR operation on the bits, which is a standard procedure for removing biases in RNG
bit streams. To simplify somewhat, the XOR essentially inverts, or "flips" half of the bits by
comparing them against a balanced XOR bit sequence. The procedure averages out any
persistent bias as long as half of the bits are inverted."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...xploration
(2017-09-14, 01:01 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, Bancel has found unexplained correlations through his statistical analysis, I have no reason to dispute that. But these are noise-based RNG devices, which are being used as environmental measuring devices. And because they are noise-based, they pick up any environmental crap they are coupled to, and you can't tell whether the crap is having an effect on the devices bias towards 1's or towards 0's, or not, until you analyse the data. And even then, if you can't find anything to show such bias, you can't actually say bias isn't there.
When you actually read that 40 odd page document I linked to from SF's, with an open mind, and better understand the differences between different RNG's, their strengths and their weaknesses then, you might better understand how such tiny effects can creep into the data in a way that is not easily found.
With noise-based RNG devices you can't say where the noise is coming from, it might simply be that Bancel's statistical analysis has uncovered the predominant behavior of people during a 24 hour period, which is coupled to their use of electrical devices, which is coupled to electrical demand/usage, which is therefore coupled to the mechanism of a noise-based RNG, say... through it's power supply, and is affecting the bias of the device.
These devices don't need to be communicating with each other, they merely need to be affected by some change in the environmental noise that they use, and to which they are coupled, and which tends to be similar across the world, like people sleeping when it's dark, and working when it's light, when they eat, when they relax, when they are at home, when they are at work, when they heat the house, when they don't heat the house, when they watch game of thrones, when they stop watching game of thrones and boil the kettle for a cup of tea... etc. etc. etc....
If the overall dataset is at expectation then this would indicate that such noise is not affecting the random input. If noise was continually resulting in non random data being produced over a large sample (and the GCP sample is huge) the results should vary wildly from expectation.
I'm not sure you can have one without the other.