So you say that they say that the human brain, through no physical interaction with the device, can alter the probability of an event by percent....Yeah, I'm willing to call bull on that.
For one thing, the paper states that the "operators" had no control over when and how a "random event" might be altered. Second there was literally zero learning curve, meaning that the "operators" were no more effective at altering random events at the end of twelve years than they were at the beginning. Finally, the one percent shift doesn't become visible until ALL of the data comes together, and since we're dealing with random numbers this doesn't mean much of anything. This, to me, suggests a source for the "aberrations" was something other than the human "operators".
Furthermore, I'm having trouble understanding how you can have "aberrations" in a truly random series of events, if the event is random then there should be no causative factor and thus no possible "aberration"(which carries an implicit assumption of predictability). If you have a random character generator programmed with the characters of the English alphabet, eventually it will produce, in chronological order, the collected works of Shakespeare, there's simply no way to know when this will occur, but it's occurrence is a certainty. The authors of the paper you cited measured deviations from "expected" results, the problem I'm having(other than the obvious one of trying to wrap my brain around how one can "expect" a random event) is that an RNG should be expected to produce such deviations, sort of like flipping a coin and having it land on tails twenty times in a row. We're talking about over two million trials with these machines, what would be amazing is if we didn't see any streaks or runs in the data. Now THAT would be something I would speculate over, an inconsistent and tiny shift in the data isn't.
Something I'm pretty sure that most people will agree on is that you can't simply will something or someone into or out of existence. It's something that nobody has ever reliably observed.
Not if you give it enough time. Any possible event, no matter how improbable, will occur given enough time.
For one thing, the paper states that the "operators" had no control over when and how a "random event" might be altered. Second there was literally zero learning curve, meaning that the "operators" were no more effective at altering random events at the end of twelve years than they were at the beginning. Finally, the one percent shift doesn't become visible until ALL of the data comes together, and since we're dealing with random numbers this doesn't mean much of anything. This, to me, suggests a source for the "aberrations" was something other than the human "operators".
Furthermore, I'm having trouble understanding how you can have "aberrations" in a truly random series of events, if the event is random then there should be no causative factor and thus no possible "aberration"(which carries an implicit assumption of predictability). If you have a random character generator programmed with the characters of the English alphabet, eventually it will produce, in chronological order, the collected works of Shakespeare, there's simply no way to know when this will occur, but it's occurrence is a certainty. The authors of the paper you cited measured deviations from "expected" results, the problem I'm having(other than the obvious one of trying to wrap my brain around how one can "expect" a random event) is that an RNG should be expected to produce such deviations, sort of like flipping a coin and having it land on tails twenty times in a row. We're talking about over two million trials with these machines, what would be amazing is if we didn't see any streaks or runs in the data. Now THAT would be something I would speculate over, an inconsistent and tiny shift in the data isn't.
Something I'm pretty sure that most people will agree on is that you can't simply will something or someone into or out of existence. It's something that nobody has ever reliably observed.
The probability of the moon dissapearing is too low, for it to happen.
Not if you give it enough time. Any possible event, no matter how improbable, will occur given enough time.