Popular Post Physics Guy Posted March 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) I don't have time to sit through a 90-minute popular video on a technical subject about which I teach and publish research articles. If you can point me to any moments in the video when anybody says anything about consciousness, I'll try to look at those quotes. If there are no such points in this video, why the heck did you post it? I am a professional in this field. My articles are in Physical Review. I'm no big shot myself but I know many of the famous figures in this field personally. To my knowledge there is no experimental evidence whatever for any role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. If there were any such evidence, it would be in Nature or Science, because it would be huge news. I would not have missed it. I have no doubt that there have been people claiming to have experimental evidence for this kind of thing. That's not the same thing. There are people claiming experimental evidence for perpetual motion, too. You can't believe everything you read or see on YouTube. If you want to convince me that entanglement has anything to do with consciousness, you need to point me to physics journal articles, not YouTube videos. Anything like the kind of article that would be relevant here would be important enough to make Nature or Science, or certainly Physical Review Letters, so it should not be at all hard to find. If you don't know that kind of scientific literature well enough to show me the references about consciousness, and you don't actually have any money quotes about consciousness in your video, then, um, maybe you should listen to what I wrote. Edited March 7, 2018 by Physics Guy 5
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: And the double-helix of DNA is a prime example of detailed information, which can be "read," and which has real life, material consequences. Most temples have spiral staircases. 1
cdowis Posted March 7, 2018 Author Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Physics Guy said: If you want to convince me that entanglement has anything to do with consciousness, you need to point me to physics journal articles, not YouTube videos. Didn't you know -->> Youtube is the future, the cutting edge, of science. Edited March 7, 2018 by cdowis 1
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 3 hours ago, Physics Guy said: I don't have time to sit through a 90-minute popular video on a technical subject about which I teach and publish research articles. If you can point me to any moments in the video when anybody says anything about consciousness, I'll try to look at those quotes. If there are no such points in this video, why the heck did you post it? I am a professional in this field. My articles are in Physical Review. I'm no big shot myself but I know many of the famous figures in this field personally. To my knowledge there is no experimental evidence whatever for any role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. If there were any such evidence, it would be in Nature or Science, because it would be huge news. I would not have missed it. I have no doubt that there have been people claiming to have experimental evidence for this kind of thing. That's not the same thing. There are people claiming experimental evidence for perpetual motion, too. You can't believe everything you read or see on YouTube. If you want to convince me that entanglement has anything to do with consciousness, you need to point me to physics journal articles, not YouTube videos. Anything like the kind of article that would be relevant here would be important enough to make Nature or Science, or certainly Physical Review Letters, so it should not be at all hard to find. If you don't know that kind of scientific literature well enough to show me the references about consciousness, and you don't actually have any money quotes about consciousness in your video, then, um, maybe you should listen to what I wrote. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. That's the nature of both religion and scientism. 1
pogi Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 17 hours ago, cinepro said: Radin has a history of ignoring data that doesn't support his theories and basing monumental claims on barely perceptible results. Skepticism is warranted... http://skepdic.com/essays/radin.html I am not commenting on his books or other things that he has said. I am only commenting on the study talked about in the video Robert posted - the results of which have been independently replicated in two different published studies. I would not call the results "barely perceptible" either.
pogi Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Pogi, you told me "You always have to consider the potential influence of bias in any study.... Ideally, you would want a large sample size randomly selected with a group assigned to each deity or religion to devote their life to the observance, study, practice of that religion (a completely unrealistic expectation, by the way). Then you would compare the results - which group professed the most believers at the end of their life. After all of that, you still haven't proven anything scientifically, other than the fact that so-and-so religion is the most effective at instilling a belief in deity - but that doesn't actually prove the deity exists." Yes, I remember. I remember that you didn't respond, so why are you responding now in a new, unrelated, thread? What does this have to do with anything I have said in this thread? Did you watch the video? 13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Have you heard of the file-drawer effect? https://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_big_evidence_isnt_the_statistical_pitfalls_of_dean_radins_supernormal Again, what does this have to do with the experiment presented in the video, or with anything I have said? I am not commenting on his book or other meta-analysis studies he has done. 13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Pogi, for me it is best to believe what the scriptures and the church teach. The scriptures never say consciousness affects matter. In the scriptures our prophets use the priesthood to perform miracles, not consciousness. For me consciousness is simply our spirit. Are you suggesting that I don't believe in the scriptures and what the church teaches? The scriptures are clear that consciousness a.k.a belief/faith does either directly or indirectly affect matter: Quote All things are possible to him that believeth (Mark 9:23). Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you (Matthew 17:20). Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them (Mark 11:23). Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done (Matthew 21:21). Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, “Don’t be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed (Luke 8:50). I could go on, but that should suffice. The Lectures on Faith would be another good reference for you. Some may dismiss the power of consciousness to expand beyond our brain, but that would deny the power of prayer (telepathy) and visions of the past and future. Suddenly his research is not so non-scriptural after all. The placebo effect is real. Consciousness and belief alone has the power to heal. This is well documented. 2
hope_for_things Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. That's the nature of both religion and scientism. Could you please explain your point. I re-read Physics Guy's points and I think he's on solid scientific ground in the mainstream. How is anything that he said scientism?
clarkgoble Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Physics Guy said: To my knowledge there is no experimental evidence whatever for any role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. If there were any such evidence, it would be in Nature or Science, because it would be huge news. I would not have missed it. I have no doubt that there have been people claiming to have experimental evidence for this kind of thing. That's not the same thing. There are people claiming experimental evidence for perpetual motion, too. You can't believe everything you read or see on YouTube. In general I think everyone should assume the worst of YouTube or things like Ted Talks. That said almost by it's nature I'm not sure consciousness can be analyzed empirically - at least not in a straightforward way. (Phenomenology tries - but it hardly unproblematic) Thus all the various positions in philosophy especially the past 100 years. The whole consciousness inherent in quantum mechanics view is indeed making a comeback among physicists and philosophers, but it's just one interpretation among many with no real empirical reasons to pick it. That is these views are severely underdetermined by evidence. BTW - speaking broadly posting links to videos is generally unhelpful. For one, it suggests you've not engaged with the position your arguing for but just heard it in passing. For an other even if the video is by someone who knows their stuff (rarely the case) they by its nature leave off reference and details that are essential for discussion. Videos are good to make you think and motivate you to read more on the subject. They rarely are an end in themselves. (And when they are they are almost always published as transcripts with footnotes) Occasionally a video is just good as an overview - Mark's done several of those. But those seem the exception. And "appeal to an overview" isn't a strong argument. If you absolutely must post a video at least give the offset to the relevant information otherwise I fear they'll go unwatched even if they had something good to say. Don't understand why? Well let me refer you to this podcast.... 46 minutes ago, pogi said: I am not commenting on his books or other things that he has said. I am only commenting on the study talked about in the video Robert posted - the results of which have been independently replicated in two different published studies. I would not call the results "barely perceptible" either. You have a link to the study and the reputable journal it's published in? Edited March 7, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
pogi Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: In the scriptures our prophets use the priesthood to perform miracles, not consciousness. For me consciousness is simply our spirit. There is a greater consciousness then our individual spirits which we can tap into. It is called the light of Christ, which fills the immensity of space and is the source of all power and governance of matter, which allows God omnipotence. It is the all seeing eye which allows God omniscience and omnipresence, with the ability to commune with us through prayer. It is the power by which the worlds were created and governed (see D&C 88 and 93). The power of the priesthood is the light of Christ (in my opinion), the priesthood is the authority which gives us greater access to that light. But this in no way suggests that miracles are impossible without ordination to the priesthood. Revelations are miracles. All are entitled to revelations. The gift of healing is not limited to priesthood holders only, but is a gift of the spirit. There are many healers outside of our church. Miracles are not limited to the priesthood, but are limited to those who believe, according to the scriptures. Edited March 7, 2018 by pogi 1
pogi Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: You have a link to the study and the reputable journal it's published in? I believe that these are the studies he referenced in the video. In the video he gives the names of the scientists who have independently replicated the results and have published their results as well. I don't know where to find those. http://deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2012doubleslit.pdf http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinQuantumBiosystems2015.pdf http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2016.pdf
CV75 Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Entanglement doesn't tell us about the afterlife, but it does pose a problematic question: How can consciousness project itself anywhere in the universe, instantly? That should be impossible. Moreover, it suggests that consciousness is not limited merely to the brain. Some scientists make the case that consciousness is an integral feature of the universe. 18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The problem for skeptics is that quantum entanglement experiments have been going on for decades, and the "spooky" results are consistently found to take place whenever there is an observer. This even applies to particles in orbit, in which the instantaneous results are faster than the speed of light. This is not possible by any rational system of physics, at least none that we know of. 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: "Reality is symbols" "Reality is information" Reality is mental states See Rorty, below. In the beginning was the Word..... 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: And the double-helix of DNA is a prime example of detailed information, which can be "read," and which has real life, material consequences. During transcription, an early step in gene expression, an RNA polymerase reads a DNA segment. Biochemical reading also occurs in the human brain when we read lines of text. While genetic material may contain information and read it, it might also have an associated consciousness as we do (who knows / why not?). If they do, this conglomeration of some 20,000 genes (multiplied by the 37.2 trillion cells in the human body) hints at a form of connectedness that might be a microcosm of the universe. Add to that the 100 trillion microbes in each human body, which also communicate on some level with us and impact our well-being, then, well... you do the math. I mean the physics. Metaphysics. 3
CV75 Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Most temples have spiral staircases. In a way, a spiral staircase is a three-dimensional representation of the opposite of half-life (or "doubling time" for example, where something continues to increase in quantity over time). DNA is the same with all that replication going on, and eternal posterity to boot! 1
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 44 minutes ago, CV75 said: During transcription, an early step in gene expression, an RNA polymerase reads a DNA segment. Biochemical reading also occurs in the human brain when we read lines of text. While genetic material may contain information and read it, it might also have an associated consciousness as we do (who knows / why not?). If they do, this conglomeration of some 20,000 genes (multiplied by the 37.2 trillion cells in the human body) hints at a form of connectedness that might be a microcosm of the universe. Add to that the 100 trillion microbes in each human body, which also communicate on some level with us and impact our well-being, then, well... you do the math. I mean the physics. Metaphysics. He said to the storm, "Peace, Be still" and the elements obeyed. It's really no more complicated than what we all do every day. By the power of our consciousness we approach a keyboard and put out communications that go all over the world. Trump tweets and the Earth shakes, markets tumble and we get closer to war. By the power of our Consciousness we pick up two pieces of paper and staple them together. We pick up bricks and mortar them together into a house which becomes an artificial environment and the world unto itself. Anyone who thinks that Consciousness does not affect matter is not thinking too clearly Yes those are physical interventions but then we have the placebo effect in which we are healed strictly by our beliefs. And science doesn't have a clue how that works at all. No one needs double slit experiments to illustrate the power of the Word, or how we organize our realities through consciousness. Make a plan and build a house. You have just created someone's world for them through your consciousness. 4
Eek! Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Physics Guy said: I am a professional in this field. My articles are in Physical Review. I'm no big shot myself but I know many of the famous figures in this field personally. May I ask for your opinion about setting up an amateur experiment? I do not have a formal education in any of the sciences. Suppose I read a book wherein the author claims that something akin to telepathy exists. Let's say I'd like to test this for myself, doesn't seem too hard to do, but I don't want to spend money or take up someone else's time or risk looking foolish to anyone other than the man in the mirror. So I decide to write a computer program that generates a random number, after which I would guess whether the number is higher than or lower than the midpoint, so it should be like a coin-toss but closer to being truly random. After each guess, the program would reveal whether my guess is right or wrong, and would keep track of my score. Let's say I decide to run 40 trials, based on fuzzy memories from a college statistics class decades ago. In your opinion, would something like this be a valid experiment for a cheapskate amateur to investigate the book's claim for himself? Edited March 7, 2018 by Eek! 1
hope_for_things Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: He said to the storm, "Peace, Be still" and the elements obeyed. It's really no more complicated than what we all do every day. By the power of our consciousness we approach a keyboard and put out communications that go all over the world. Trump tweets and the Earth shakes, markets tumble and we get closer to war. By the power of our Consciousness we pick up two pieces of paper and staple them together. We pick up bricks and mortar them together into a house which becomes an artificial environment and the world unto itself. Anyone who thinks that Consciousness does not affect matter is not thinking too clearly Yes those are physical interventions but then we have the placebo effect in which we are healed strictly by our beliefs. And science doesn't have a clue how that works at all. No one needs double slit experiments to illustrate the power of the Word, or how we organize our realities through consciousness. Make a plan and build a house. You have just created someone's world for them through your consciousness. But its not consciousness that has affects matter directly, its the results of actions of conscious beings that has an affect. You wouldn't say that two bricks are conscious would you? They can't act. Trump has to take action by posting on social media for it to have an impact on others all over the world. Humans can create autonomous systems that can execute orders that have an impact on the world. Automated robots have an impact on those around them. Your smart thermostat will have an impact on you when it heats your home within the parameters of its programming. But have any of these sophisticated systems reached a level of consciousness? I don't think anything created by mankind up to this point could pass the Turing test, but when something does at some point in the future, will that thing be conscious? Will that created thing be experiencing consciousness equivalent or even superior to how human's perceive consciousness? These are all questions I have that may be difficult to answer in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
hope_for_things Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 45 minutes ago, Eek! said: May I call on your expertise as far as setting up experiments? I do not have a formal education in any of the sciences. Suppose I read a book wherein the author claims that something akin to telepathy exists. Let's say I'd like to test this for myself, doesn't seem too hard to do, but I don't want to spend money or take up someone else's time or risk looking foolish to anyone other than the man in the mirror. So I decide to write a program that generates a random number, after which I would guess whether the number is higher than or lower than the midpoint, so it should be like a coin-toss but closer to being truly random. After each guess, the program would reveal whether my guess is right or wrong, and would keep track of my score. Let's say I decide to run 40 trials, based on fuzzy memories from a college statistics class decades ago. In your opinion, would something like this be a valid experiment for a cheapskate amateur to investigate the book's claim for himself? I'm not sure if others are still offering prizes for evidence of supernatural abilities, but this was a thing a few years back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge
CV75 Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: He said to the storm, "Peace, Be still" and the elements obeyed. It's really no more complicated than what we all do every day. By the power of our consciousness we approach a keyboard and put out communications that go all over the world. Trump tweets and the Earth shakes, markets tumble and we get closer to war. By the power of our Consciousness we pick up two pieces of paper and staple them together. We pick up bricks and mortar them together into a house which becomes an artificial environment and the world unto itself. Anyone who thinks that Consciousness does not affect matter is not thinking too clearly Yes those are physical interventions but then we have the placebo effect in which we are healed strictly by our beliefs. And science doesn't have a clue how that works at all. No one needs double slit experiments to illustrate the power of the Word, or how we organize our realities through consciousness. Make a plan and build a house. You have just created someone's world for them through your consciousness. Consciousness separably -- and eventually inseparably (now does that happen?!) -- connected with element!
cinepro Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eek! said: May I ask for your opinion about setting up an amateur experiment? I do not have a formal education in any of the sciences. Suppose I read a book wherein the author claims that something akin to telepathy exists. Let's say I'd like to test this for myself, doesn't seem too hard to do, but I don't want to spend money or take up someone else's time or risk looking foolish to anyone other than the man in the mirror. So I decide to write a program that generates a random number, after which I would guess whether the number is higher than or lower than the midpoint, so it should be like a coin-toss but closer to being truly random. After each guess, the program would reveal whether my guess is right or wrong, and would keep track of my score. Let's say I decide to run 40 trials, based on fuzzy memories from a college statistics class decades ago. In your opinion, would something like this be a valid experiment for a cheapskate amateur to investigate the book's claim for himself? I'm not physics guy, but there are better experiments to test for psychic ability. But the most important thing to do is first define what you are testing for (i.e. what are the claimed abilities of the psychic?) Then you can devise an experiment that isolates the claim from other factors that could also account for a psychic-like result. The problem with your experiment is that you would need to define the expected result for someone with telepathy. If the experiment is performed enough times with enough people, just by chance you would expect some people to get very high results (even 40/40 correct), and very low results (0/40 would be highly unusual but still possible without psychic powers). So with that in mind, you could use such an experiment to try and find people who might have telepathic powers, and after they get an unusually high or low result, then subject them to additional tests. I think it was James Randi who had a good test for telepaths who claimed "remote viewing" abilities (i.e. the ability to discern objects from great distances). He put an object in a box in his office, and challenged remote viewers to tell him what the object was. If someone were able to identify such an object, then they could then be tested to see how consistent they can be with additional tests. Tests for telepathy can usually be pretty simple if the telepath makes a clear claim about their abilities. The only difficulty is in "controlling" the experiment to account for all the creative reasons people can come up with as to why they failed the test but should still be considered to have such powers. Edited March 7, 2018 by cinepro 2
CV75 Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: But its not consciousness that has affects matter directly, its the results of actions of conscious beings that has an affect. You wouldn't say that two bricks are conscious would you? They can't act. Trump has to take action by posting on social media for it to have an impact on others all over the world. Humans can create autonomous systems that can execute orders that have an impact on the world. Automated robots have an impact on those around them. Your smart thermostat will have an impact on you when it heats your home within the parameters of its programming. But have any of these sophisticated systems reached a level of consciousness? I don't think anything created by mankind up to this point could pass the Turing test, but when something does at some point in the future, will that thing be conscious? Will that created thing be experiencing consciousness equivalent or even superior to how human's perceive consciousness? These are all questions I have that may be difficult to answer in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test Many hold that consciousness – the ability to feel and desire things -- is very much a physically-driven phenomenon. Two bricks, for all we know, may well be conscious, and to a degree we have imbued them with our own. Sufficiently imbued, they can act (think silicon bricks with AI properties), at least when acted upon, just like the autonomous systems you mentioned. The physical laws just have to be mastered sufficiently to make them feel as well. Building AI from a synthetic, genetic level, for example. So far, the more advanced human creations are more in the realm of intelligence (the ability to think and act; behave) than consciousness, but the same seems to hold true. One property of consciousness is that we can only have faith that the entity we create possesses it, especially qualitatively but even quantitatively. This is not so with intelligence; we know that the AI produces intelligence and intelligent results. Hence consciousness is the epitome of faith, embracing what cannot be knowable as if it were. This is why I think consciousness is to intelligence as faith is to knowledge, really two forms of the same thing. A man without faith is like an AI; an AI with consciousness would be like a man. Edited March 7, 2018 by CV75
pogi Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: But its not consciousness that has affects matter directly... No? Your consciousness did not cause your material body to type that sentence? Can you explain the placebo effect without relying on the mind-body connection? Read this please, if you are still not convinced: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456909/ Edited March 7, 2018 by pogi 2
Eek! Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, cinepro said: I'm not physics guy, but there are better experiments to test for psychic ability. But the most important thing to do is first define what you are testing for (i.e. what are the claimed abilities of the psychic?) Then you can devise an experiment that isolates the claim from other factors that could also account for a psychic-like result. I'm sure there are better experiments. This isn't supposed to be the best one. This is only supposed to be an inexpensive experiment to satisfy one person's curiosity, without taking up anyone else's time. It would only test whether the person can sense if a randomly-generated number is lower or higher than the theoretical midpoint. 20 minutes ago, cinepro said: The problem with your experiment is that you would need to define the expected result for someone with telepathy. If the experiment is performed enough times with enough people, just by chance you would expect some people to get very high results (even 40/40 correct), and very low results (0/40 would be highly unusual but still possible without psychic powers). So with that in mind, you could use such an experiment to try and find people who might have telepathic powers, and after they get an unusually high or low result, then subject them to additional tests. This is NOT an in-depth study, nor a quest for psychics. Assuming the experiment doesn't have any disqualifying flaws, the results should be amenable to statistical analysis. 24 minutes ago, cinepro said: The only difficulty is in "controlling" the experiment to account for all the creative reasons people can come up with as to why they failed the test but should still be considered to have such powers. Since this experiment is only intended to satisfy one person's curiosity, it's up to that person to be honest with himself. 1
cinepro Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 28 minutes ago, Eek! said: I'm sure there are better experiments. This isn't supposed to be the best one. This is only supposed to be an inexpensive experiment to satisfy one person's curiosity, without taking up anyone else's time. It would only test whether the person can sense if a randomly-generated number is lower or higher than the theoretical midpoint. This is NOT an in-depth study, nor a quest for psychics. Assuming the experiment doesn't have any disqualifying flaws, the results should be amenable to statistical analysis. Since this experiment is only intended to satisfy one person's curiosity, it's up to that person to be honest with himself. You could just start with this online test here: https://www.psychicscience.org/esp3.aspx One other observation about your proposed test is that it might be unnecessarily complicated. The simpler the test is, the more obvious the results will be, and the less chance there is for a misapplication of "statistical analysis" to be used to glean a desired result. Instead of 40 options, narrow it down to 2. So start simple. For example, a 9-year-old came up with a very simple experiment to investigate the claims that some people can detect "energy" from other peoples' bodies from several inches away. It's a simple and obvious experiment, and the results are very easy to understand.
Eek! Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: One other observation about your proposed test is that it might be unnecessarily complicated. The simpler the test is, the more obvious the results will be, and the less chance there is for a misapplication of "statistical analysis" to be used to glean a desired result. Instead of 40 options, narrow it down to 2. Sorry I wasn't clear. Each trial (cycle of one random number and one guess) only offers the person two possible choices ("greater than" the midpoint of the random number range, or "less than" the midpoint of the random number range), with there only being two possible results of each trial ("correct" or "incorrect"). (If the random number happened to be exactly at the midpoint, the random function would simply run again, so that one of the two choices would be correct... sort of like if the coin lands on its edge, you flip it again.) At first I was thinking of just tossing a coin. I read about that, and apparently whichever side is up when the person begins the toss is very slightly more likely to be the side that's up when the coin lands. And my coordination is poor, so some tosses would be really bad, but should those then be excluded? I also considered rolling dice, shaking dice in a cup, and shaking a coin in a cup. Of course I would see which side was up to start with, and I think that side would have a very slightly higher probability of being the one that ends up being up, and that thought in and of itself could skew my guesses. I think that the "randomize timer" function in Basic probably comes closer to being truly random than any of these, and having a computer program keep track of the score would give me one less mistake to make. The reason for 40 trials is, in order to have a large enough sample size for a worthwhile statistical analysis. I vaguely recall from my statistics class that in a test like this, a minimum of thirty-something trials are recommended. Here is where I get my statistical analysis from: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx The probability of success of a single trial would be .50 (50%). The number of trials would be 40. The number of "successes" would be the number I got right. Suppose I got 23 right out of 40. The odds of getting at least 23 out of 40 right are .2147925392 (the bottom-most readout), or a little bit higher than 2 in 10. It would be up to me to decide whether that means anything (nope), and I would not expect my test to have any validity for anyone else, because I would be the only one who could possibly have confidence that there really was no cheating or cherry-picking of the data. Edited March 8, 2018 by Eek!
cinepro Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 52 minutes ago, Eek! said: It would be up to me to decide whether that means anything (nope), and I would not expect my test to have any validity for anyone else, because I would be the only one who could possibly have confidence that there really was no cheating or cherry-picking of the data. Even if you guessed 40 out of 40 correct, hopefully it wouldn't mean anything to you other than knowing you've accomplished a very unlikely random scenario. If you know you are guessing, then you would also know you aren't exercising any psychic abilities, regardless of the outcome. It would probably be a good idea to read this book a few times and make sure you realize all the reasons really unusual, statistically improbably events are expected to happen all the time. The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day Only after you have controlled for all of these factors would you want to even begin to start looking for deeper meaning. 1
Eek! Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, cinepro said: Even if you guessed 40 out of 40 correct, hopefully it wouldn't mean anything to you other than knowing you've accomplished a very unlikely random scenario. Imo this would set the bar unreasonably high, but I don't think you realized that. Since you are usually very reasonable, I'll assume that you think guessing 40 out of 40 correctly is not really all that improbable. Actually, it is. The odds of that happening by random chance are about one in 85,000,000,000,000, based on the probability calculator at the link in my post above (which doesn't actually go out to enough decimal places). That's one in eighty-five trillion. (Calculating by another method, I come up with about one in a trillion, which is still rather improbable). Consider this: If a student gets 40-out-of-40 right on an exam where all of the questions are true/false, which is the more reasonable explanation: An incredibly unlikely random event occurred, or something else is going on... such as, the student came up with the answers some other way (memory, deduction, cheating, some combination thereof)? So, if someone were to guess 40 out of 40 correctly in the experiment I described, which is the more reasonable explanation: An incredibly unlikely random event occurred, or something else is going on? An open-minded skeptic would say, considering the odds, it is plausible that something else is going on. A closed-minded skeptic would say, the evidence doesn't matter, nothing other than random chance could be going on. If PhysicsGuy sets up an apparatus that fires a single photon through a double slit, and on 40 out of 40 trials the photon passes through the right-hand slit, is he going to say, "the set-up is obviously correct, because that sure looks random to me!" Or is he going to double-check the setup and calibration of the apparatus, because it's likely that something else is going on? Hopefully PhysicsGuy will see this and answer that question himself rather than letting me just assume what he would do. James Randi would have paid out a million dollars for 35 out of 40 (probability of less than one in a million). 17 hours ago, cinepro said: If you know you are guessing, then you would also know you aren't exercising any psychic abilities, regardless of the outcome. Good point. Maybe there is a different word that would be a better fit, because the word "guessing" does imply an admission that no psychic ability or intuition or anything like that is possibly in play. "Attempt", perhaps? (Notice that we have a different emotional reaction to the word "intuition" than to the words "psychic ability"... one is socially acceptable, the other is not, but they can mean exactly the same thing.) I haven't read the book you linked to, but I've read articles along similar lines. I understand the difference between the odds of a given person winning the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes, and the odds of SOMEONE winning the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Edited March 8, 2018 by Eek!
Recommended Posts