RNG Training Experiment Idea.

It does say, "These tests use a software random number generator to determine outcomes". That being so, the only control one has over the outcome is in setting the initial conditions. It is essentially a one-shot game. One either chooses initial conditions which will lead to a desired outcome, or one does not. (that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50). It makes any prolonged session at a particular task particularly dull and fruitless, since one is simply playing out a deterministic sequence of events.

I should add, that using software generated numbers is probably ok for some tasks, for example a guessing game. But utterly useless for testing psychokinesis.

Think of it this way. Do you know which digit (0 to 9) is the 5000th decimal place in the value of PI? I don't know. One can make a guess. Then set up a computer to calculate the value of PI to that many decimal places and compare. But no matter how many times you run the computer program, it will always give the same value for the 5000th decimal digit of PI. Psychokinesis won't change it.

On the other hand, if one takes a system such as a computer network, which transmits data over a distance, it may be possible to induce errors in the network transmission. This was discussed in a video presentation describing Unconscious or Unintentional PK
PK is Real: Findings from the Rhine with John G. Kruth (from about 9:57)

It does say, "These tests use a software random number generator to determine outcomes". That being so, the only control one has over the outcome is in setting the initial conditions. It is essentially a one-shot game. One either chooses initial conditions which will lead to a desired outcome, or one does not. (that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50). It makes any prolonged session at a particular task particularly dull and fruitless, since one is simply playing out a deterministic sequence of events.

Yes, the tests on that website all use a pseudorandom number generator, but that doesn't necessarily mean they all operate in a strictly deterministic fashion from start to finish. For instance, consider a behind-the-scenes program enhancement used for decades in electronic casino gambling machines. The enhancement consists of three simple steps:

1) The pseudorandom number generator algorithm runs constantly in the background, producing hundreds of outcomes per second. Outcomes can range from the symbols appearing on the reels of a slot machine to the 20 numbers drawn in a keno game to the five cards comprising a dealt hand in video poker.

2) The algorithm stops momentarily when the user presses the "Play" button (or "Deal" button for card games like video poker).

3) The game then chooses the last outcome produced by the algorithm before it was stopped. The outcome is displayed on the screen.

1) The algorithm then resumes producing hundreds of outcomes per second until the user momentarily stops it again by pressing the "Play" or "Deal" button.

For all electronic casino games and some online PK tests, it's not hard to approach something resembling true randomness with an enhancement like this running in the background. All you need is a game or test structure that consists of rounds of play and a button press for each round. The Psychokinesis (PK) Championship meets these requirements perfectly.

Now, for the Ball-Drop PK Test running in automatic mode, you might well be correct in asserting that influencing individual ball drops is a futile enterprise. This is because only the initial ball click is randomly chosen, and all ball drops from that point onward are totally deterministic in origin. However, I'm not so sure that focusing one's attention and intention on individual ball drops is in fact futile. Providing the period length of the random number generator's algorithm is long enough to accommodate any combination of individual ball-drop outcomes, it seems to me at least theoretically possible for consciousness to reach back in time and replace the algorithm's seed number with one that will lead to whatever outcome is desired. I would suggest the same for the other tests on this page, with the exception of the Psychic Slots PK Test (as well as the aforementioned Psychokinesis (PK) Championship Test, of course).

Thanks for those thoughts and insights Doug - there's a fair bit to chew on there.

I'll just mention this information quoted from the site we're talking about:

The "random numbers" used in all tests, games and demonstrations on our site are generated by the JavaScript Math.random() method. This software PNRG algorithm is seeded by clock time, and produces a floating point number between 0 and 1. This number can then be transformed computationally into the values required for particular applications. For example, the output can be transformed into integer (whole number) values from 1 to 5, representing the five different ESP card symbols.

https://psychicscience.org/random.aspx
There's no explicit mention of anything done in addition to the above - though we can't rule it out without asking the site creator for comment.
edit: Or perhaps by analysing the javascript code itself, which should be available in order to be executed by the browser.

Thanks for those thoughts and insights Doug - there's a fair bit to chew on there.

I'll just mention this information quoted from the site we're talking about:
https://psychicscience.org/random.aspx
There's no explicit mention of anything done in addition to the above - though we can't rule it out without asking the site creator for comment.
edit: Or perhaps by analysing the javascript code itself, which should be available in order to be executed by the browser.

Actually, Typoz, there's another, simpler way to introduce some dynamic randomization into code for online psi tests. It is to generate a new seed number each time a decision button is clicked. A Web server's time stamp can be used as the extraneous random input to generate the new seed number. That's how Dean Radin's GotPsi tests are randomized, as I learned recently. It wouldn't surprise me to learn Michael Daniels uses the same method for his tests.

Actually, Typoz, there's another, simpler way to introduce some dynamic randomization into code for online psi tests. It is to generate a new seed number each time a decision button is clicked. A Web server's time stamp can be used as the extraneous random input to generate the new seed number. That's how Dean Radin's GotPsi tests are randomized, as I learned recently. It wouldn't surprise me to learn Michael Daniels uses the same method for his tests.

I suppose it depends on the context. This seed = timestamp approach rings a bell, if I recall it was used in some real-world system which was thereby vulnerable to fraud. If one has knowledge of both the algorithm and the seed, the entire system becomes known - for example to hackers. Sorry, I don't have a reference to where this was reported.

Still, I think we are getting a little sidetracked, I'm still not in favour of pseudo-randoms in PK tests. That remains my starting point, and adding various kludgy workarounds doesn't feel like a satisfactory solution. In effect, it is being changed from a PK test, to one of precognition, or remote viewing, or some effect other than PK.

However, this topic is being discussed in a separate thread started by Chris: Psychokinesis in deterministic systems which may be a more appropriate place for these concerns.

Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "true" randomness because mathematicaly there is no such thing as "randomness" as far as anyone can tell you would be able to solve this whole alleged problem by just having an expected output vs actual output thing at the end of the run. Thus showing if for whatever reason there were bit read "errors".

The only difference between a "psuedo" random and "true" random generator is just where they pull their seed from. True randoms pull it from environmental noise and are thus more complex and harder to predict but are still completely deterimistic as per the noise. Psuedo randoms also pull from environmental noise, it just so happens that the noise is made of more stable things like system clock, time stamps, or whatnot. Both are psuedo random, it's just that the "true" ones rely on something a lot more wispy and thus a lot easier to affect with the mind than  the former.

If the argument is it's somehow no longer PK when it's with psuedo randoms, well, then it's never PK.

The only difference between a "psuedo" random and "true" random generator is just where they pull their seed from. True randoms pull it from environmental noise and are thus more complex and harder to predict but are still completely deterimistic as per the noise.

The idea is that the input of "true" random number generators comes from quantum processes, which are really not deterministic.

The idea is that the input of "true" random number generators comes from quantum processes, which are really not deterministic.

quantum processes that collapse and become discreet based on interactions with the environment, which makes them detemined by the interactions that collapse them.

quantum processes that collapse and become discreet based on interactions with the environment, which makes them detemined by the interactions that collapse them.

If you're arguing that the universe is still deterministic under quantum physics, then that's a very unorthodox view, and I don't think it's one that many quantum-physics-oriented parapsychologists would agree with.

If you're arguing that the universe is still deterministic under quantum physics, then that's a very unorthodox view, and I don't think it's one that many quantum-physics-oriented parapsychologists would agree with.

Well it's kinda an inbetween thing. I suspect the universe is more of an emergent thing cobbled together from whatever happens to be compatible at the moment.

I use an analogy I call the "infinite railroad" where you imagine a rairoad made entirely out of track changers, making a giant grid.... thing. So long as you stay on one track where you end up after whatever period of time is pre determined. Switching just puts you on another predetermined path but maybe not for long enough to get very far if you switch again. Although what was on the track for however long you were on it was still pre determined. Switching itself may be influenced by external things and if so, it's all deterministic no matter what. No idea.