Global Consciousness Experiment

1
Global Consciousness Experiment
QUESTION Does the coherent attention of many
people influence the material world
An international web-based experiment coordinated
by Dr. Roger Nelson at Princeton University
2
Material world
hardware random number generator (RNG)
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 ...
Example of random noise (200 samples)
This can be represented by a distribution
RNG distribution might be affected
3
Collective Consciousness
like this.
Mental Coherence ...
does this affect this distribution...
HOW IT ALL STARTED
4
Traditional Mind Over Matter research

• People claimed to be able to influence matter by
  mind
• Ask a subject to influence a random process
• E.g. the fall of a coin (e.g. with target
  heads)
• Later Radioactive process and electronic
  equivalents (RNGs)
• Outcome measure the proportion of event in to
  the target direction.

5
PK research movie
6
PK Research results
7
Druten Poltergeist case event plot
Planned analysis Around an event the RNG becomes
coherent and produces more alternating sequences
(plt0.05)
8
Incidental Observation24 mei 1995 Ajax-AC Milan
RNG shows long series of 1 or 0 during the
soccer match (p lt0.05).
9
Goal (1-0!) analysis
No effect on the RNG behavior
10
Pilot test example OJ Simpson Verdict
Show starts
Judge enters
verdict
More ordered
More random
This graph gives the odds of the behavior of 5
RNGs in Princeton, Las Vegas and Amsterdam
during the verdict
11
The prediction for the project
Mental Incoherence
Mental coherence
Results in moments of material incoherence
(randomness)
Result in moments of material coherence (order)
12
Data acquisition method
24 hours a dag, each second 200 bits. Many
(currently gt50) RNGs distributed over the globe
send at 10 seconds interval to Princeton server.
At preferable pre-specified moments where many
people attend to the same event we expect
cumulative deviations from the normal behavior of
Random Number Generators
http//noosphere.princeton.edu
13
(No Transcript)
14
Web Site noosphere.princeton.edu
home page
One can observe the bahavior of the RNGs in
real time
or display a movie covering the last day
(discontinued feature)..
15
Web predictions and Results Page
16
Web experiment example earthquake in Turkije
Seismograph, August 17,1999
Odds of behavior of 20 RNGs, August 17,1999
earthquake
earthquake
17
Graphical representation of cumulative results
(till feb 2004)
p .000000025
Cumulative deviation
p .05 threshold
Chance expectation
Currently 165 formal events, p lt 0.000000025
18
What is an important event?

• Subjective ( Western centered!) but ..
• Correlations with objective news measures
• R 0.15 over het jaar 2000. (P lt0.01)
• Mysteries remain millenium (1999-2000) was less
  than 2001-2002. And Lady Di funeral was more
  than sister Theresas..
• Is sep-11 an important event?

19
11 september WTC
How dis the network of RNGs behave on around the
attack? (see also article in Foundations of
Physics)
20
Sep11Results of all RNGs
Note that the deviant behavior already start on
sep-10!
21
Sep11 Device Variance
Note the start at 6 oclock in the morning
22
Sep11 between RNG Correlations
23
Quote from FoP artikelFoundations of Physics
Letters, Vol. 15, No. 6, December 2002, pp.
537-550
.The trace displays an unexceptional random walk
for several days preceding September 11 but then
changes dramatically. The trend beginning just
before the World Trade Center (WTC) attack is
unique in the three-year database. A deviation
with this slope continuing for so long would
happen by chance only once in about 2300 days,
24
What does all this mean and imply?

• Data Moments with global coherent attention
  correlate with coherent behavior of material
  RNGs
• Possible implication Non-local correlation
  between collective mind and matter (but possibly
  experimentator effect? Local or global?)
• The mechanism is unknown. But possibly more like
  an axiomatic principle than specifiable in
  underlying processes.
• BUT

25
NOVA may 2003
26
Criticism (e.g. tHooft)

• It is impossible theoretically
• Why correlations with human intention and not
  with massive cosmic phenomena.
• The statistics are too complex
• The events are not specified in advance

27
Can we resolve the issues?
28
Proposed Solutions

• Impossible
• Why not cosmic
• Complex statistics
• Post hoc event specificiation

• Data -gt theory not the reverse
• Maybe there is
• Possible to simplify
• Possible to circumvent and not always

29
Other method of data analysis

• Database is controlled by skeptics and can only
  be consulted after event specification
• After event specification the relevant data are
  extracted by the skeptics plus 5 control periods
  which are as long as the event. The dates-times
  are removed.
• These 6 sets of data are then be sent to the
  analyzer who has to pick out the real event.

30
A prespecified event New Year

• There are many new years in different timezones.
  We use them all.
• We analyze from -30 to 30 minutes around each
  new year. Thus avoiding overlap.

31
New Years analysis
New Years 1999-2004, Average Variance
Minutes from midnight
32
Concluding note New Years
We should recall that these new year analyses,
especially the combination of the variance
measure results, are in some degree post facto.
Only the last four years of the variance analysis
were fully prespecified, and if we compute the
aggregate result from those four years the
probability is 0.022 (compared with 0.007 for the
six years).
33
Current work

• Distance as variable
• Type of event as variable

34
Distance
35
Categories
Effectsizes for assigned subsets of Event Database
36
Thank you
Web site noosphere.princeton.edu Mail
d.j.bierman_at_uva.nl