Please see our new and updated sites below:
Bitte sehen Sie unsere neuen und aktuellen Webseiten hier: (our Forum - 1 Million views per year) (Practitioner listing) (Spiritual Medicine) (Virtual Doctor site) (Technology dedicated site) (Bioresonance site) (YouTube channel with over 300 uploads)  &


  Core-System deutsch  
  Screen Shots   
  Further Reading  

Postings to the Yahoo energetic Medicine News group:


  E-mail INFO  


The following is a posts on the EnergeticMedicine Group at by  Kiran Schmidt on the use of Pseudo Random and Noise Random Event Generators in bioenergetic testing.

Hello G., Group

Do you remember the Butterfly-Effect.... I am sure you do it is by now common place and thousand fold copied, it is stating "The flap of a Butterfly in Brazil can set off a Tornado in Texas"..... sounds good.....but where is this understanding coming from? It is derived from a Paper by Lorenz in 1979 in which he first showed that a certain group of simple mathematical formula can give extremely different results even when changing its factors only in a minute way..... from this purely mathematical phenomenon now thousands of people in blind faith have made the deductive quantum leap to say "that what is true for a specific formula must certainly be true also in nature" thus came about the myth of the Butterfly-effect (I call it the Blind-faith-in-Math-effect). In reality in a healthy world something like that can not happen because one "the world does not behave like a simple formula" and two "luckily there are enough neutralizing  forces at work that prevent us to feel the effect of some person somewhere in the world flushing his toilet". (In fact it will and can happen more the more we have a cultural and biological monoculture.... but that's another topic)
So why are am telling this story where we are actually talking about the "pseudo random versus "real" random generator" effect? One, because I already see advertising headlines going about like that: "12 years of scientific study at Princeton University have proven that remedy testing and treatment at a distance are now established facts".... in fact nothing would be further from the truth.  How I, maybe you or others use Random Event Generators of whatever kind to test and to treat in a virtual way is far beyond anything that has been tried to be rigorously proven by any department of established science. What this Princeton Study has however exclusively and rigorously proven is that by allowing a test person to determine the time when to start a REG (Random Event Generator) the results will mirror the task given to the person of either directing the events towards plus or down towards minus. This extraordinary fact, and this alone, has been proven by this study within reasonable statistical probability. This effect cannot be explained by any established model in science today.
As to the technical question whether these results can be obtained equally with a pseudo-random or "noise"-random generator you have stated that newer findings have proven that:  "For the strictly deterministic sources #1 and #2, however, no such correlations are observed."  First I would like to get the exact reference where this finding is stated and if it is stated in this absolute way,..... second I would say if this is the case it would cast serious doubt on the whole project and its result-reporting.
In the book version on page 122 and 123 graphs are given which compare pseudo and noise and they are strikingly similar and the terminal Probability for this to happen by chance are given with between 0.003 and 0.081, which means basically impossible if you compound the probability that this resemblance could happen just by chance in all these cases. If you look at table D these findings are based on the summary of several hundred thousand trials..... what has changed that according to your  private correspondence with them they are now considering these findings as not correct?
Yes, there are some differences, and this is only to be expected, but would this make the fact that there is a significant deviation from chance expectation (in every and any case) less striking.... obviously not !  In fact they summarize the findings of this chapter as follows "These similarities further incline towards the second of the two hypotheses posed above regarding the mechanics of the anomalous interaction; namely, that the effect seems to function at the systemic informational level, rather than invading the physical processes of any given component."
This is also the way these anomalies would be described in the CoRe-Model as these effects belong predominantly to the coincidental - realm... which means they are understood not as the effect of any cause what so ever not even the intention of the test person.... on an informational level these effects and the test person are connected invariant of their spatial and temporal coordination (sorry for the very rigid language).  
Also from a more philosophical point of view the idea of a "real"-random process can in fact only be an abstraction based on the point of view and informational background of the observer. Stephen Wolfram shows this in a very rigorous way for electrical signals on page 130 of  his "A new kind of science" that even the most arbitrary waveforms can be deduced from the most simple deterministic rules..... this means the most arbitrary really is that which has no structure or pattern whatsoever recognizable with any search algorithm of whatever kind and that in fact does not exist to Wolfram or paradoxically the most arbitrary is also the most uniform, a perfectly grey peace of paper for example.... please ponder about it,,,, it's really not so simple.
But now again more practically this question is really only of much importance if one is seeing the world through one's cause-and-effect goggles..... then it is obviously an insurmountable obstacle how a pre-determined process could give any answer to a specific question.... but here the problem does not lie in the facts but in the expectation with which the question is asked..... I would say with you that random processes are not the most meaningless but the most Meaning-Full things we can encounter "All truth lays in all things as Walt Whitman used to say", .......the question is how do you extract this meaning.
And in the CoRe-Model the real question is in order to get Synchronistic-Phenomena in an as-pure-as-possible form the choice is not between predetermined or not but between a process that is as free of causative effects as possible  and one that is less so. If the pseudo-random generator would in fact run without the ability of the operator to start the process at a given time according to his own choice it would indeed be totally causalistic but this is not the case. And is the noise-source totally free of physical laws, naturally not, in fact it is a incredibly more simple mechanism than a test person and from this point of view will produce much more predictable output. Obviously both are beyond our present computational powers, but from a conceptional point of view just the opposite is the case of what you would assume based on intuition alone.
Just as an example of the predictive power of the CoRe-Model I would in fact expect that you would get even better synchronistic results if you would disturb the test person  as much as possible while he is pressing his start button at intervals, this would even imbalance causalistic influences like brainwave rhythms or heartbeat frequency and so on... do you get the picture..... in actual fact they tried to make the test person as comfortable and undisturbed as possible because the initial working model was that his attention is what is influencing the process...... and again you can see the parallel with real life experience.... you will see and experience more coincidences the more your life is out of balance..... this is when you see the hand of god or the incredible connectedness of so many things..... and less so when you want to make your life waterproof against any kind of unexpected events.
PS: thank you Rob its good to get some appreciation
----- Original Message -----
From: G.  
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: [EnergeticMedicine] random Kiran

Dear Kiran,
Now that I'm "back in the saddle again" (albeit rather jet lagged), I wanted to take a little closer look at one of your earlier comments - on June 3 you stated:
Now this was strange to me and indicated that he even had not read thoroughly the book he was basing his technology on.  On page 121 it says "The results obtained using this device (a pseudo random source) are strikingly similar to those achieved with the random source (the white noise diode).... so why would he go through the extra trouble to incorporate something that makes no difference? Therefore, I would say to G. that in the  Dunne/Jahn model it was just one of the possible influencing factors which was found to be negligible and not a core element.
I believe there may be an oversight here.  As I had preveiously mentioned, in the past I have enjoyed a fruitful period of direct communication with the lab at Princeton and corresponded directly with Brenda Dunne concerning several matters including the one to which you refer.
The specific topic of "device dependence" is one that has received much attention and generated significant opinion and conclusion - "real random event generation" processes and "pseudo random number generation" processes are NOT equivalent or "srtikingly similar" - perhaps a more thorough reading of the text or more importantly a review of specific research papers would have helped to make this point more clear 
I point this out not to find fault in your presentation of ideas (which I have found provocative and promising) but rather to help any and all of us "learning out loud" in this group to build a more clear appreciation in this important topic - I personally have always thought that the word "random" as in "random event generation" lent itself to the "meaningless" as you so well point out in other of your postings - instead of "random event generation" I have always thought of it as "unlimited choice generation" meaning that it holds no predetermined bias of any sort - consequently any significant devaition from a neutral statistical norm offers evidence of an influence of undisclosed nature and/or origin
In a paper by R. Jahn, B. Dunne, R. Nelson, Y. Dobyns and G. Bradish (Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention; A Review of a 12-Year Program), the subject of device dependence was well explored and conclusions were presented which state essentially that a "real random event generation" process and a "pseudo random number generation" process were NOT the same
To quote the paper in small part: "The sensitivity of anomalous correlations to the particular random source employed or to its form of implementation into an experimental device has been extensively explored via a variety of machines and protocols.  In the simplest variants, the commercial microelectronic noise diode in the benchmark configuration was replaced by identical and similar units, with no detectable changes in the character of the results."  Here we see that a "real/physical random event generation" process is preserved with the use of actual random microelectronic noise generating devices
The paper continues: "In a more substantial and, as it turned out, more critical set of modifications, the physical noise source was replaced by three distinctly different pseudorandom sources:
1) A pseudorandom-number generating algorithm included in the Borland Turbo Basic programming package was implemented on an IBM AT-286 computer to provide binary strings that could be counted and displayed in the same formats as the benchmark experiments.  More specifically, the floating-point numbers provided by theBorland function, which distribute uniformly over the interval of 0 to 1, were converted into bits by assigning 1 to all values above 0.5 and 0 to all values below or equal to 0.5.  The initiating seeds were obtained by starting a microsecond clock when the operator prompts first appeared on the screen, and stopping it when the operators responded by pressing a key.  The accumulated values were then added to the number of seconds since midnight to compund the seeds.  In performing these experiments, the operators had the options of digital, digital cumulative, or graphical cumulative deviation displays on the monitor, akin to those available on the benchmark version.
2) The benchmark equipment was modified to allow replacement of the Elgenco noise source by a hard-wired electronic shift register containing 31 flip-flops comprising a sequence length of over 2 X 10 to the sixth steps.  This generator produced strictly deterministic sequences from the same initial seed that, at a sampling rate of 1000Hz, recycled roughly every 60 hours, far exceeding the length of any single experimental session.  From the operator's perspective, all other aspects of the protocol, machine operation, and feedback display were identical to those of the benchmark expreiments (meaning the person involved inthe expreiment had no way of knowing that there was a different device being used)
3) A random element was overlaid on the pseudorandom processor just described by introducing an asynchronous shift frequency for the register, drivenby an analog element that swept from a few kHz to a few tens of kHz over a period of several minutes.  This unpredictable component of the sampling imbued the device with a complex combination of random and pseudorandom characteristics.
As discussed..., when source #3, which retains some physically random features, is utilized, statistically significant correlations of results with operator intention, comparable to those sen in the benchmark experiments, continue to appear.  For the strictly deterministic sources #1 and #2, however, no such correlations are observed."
Basically, in a paper reviewing 12 years of experience, the Princeton lab has determined that pseudo random number generation does NOT match the behavior of real/physical random generation processes as determined by their ongoing experimentation.  Hence, if one gives any validity to the Princeton work (which is the most authoritative, hard, and enduring experiment in this field) then one must conclude that pseudo random generation processes are not reliable means for creating and amassing evidence for statistical pattern analysis - real/physical random event generation, regardless of its type appears to be required for a faithful and unbiased sourcing of statistical deviation and pattern significance
In light of this information, it is my opinion that devices that uitlize pseudo random number generation to create statistical analyses are weakened in their capacity to act in an unbiased, non-determined and "open minded" fashion - on screen displays can occur which appear valid to the viewer but the degree and quality of the information is in fact reduced - this is not to say pseudo random generation has no validity at all but rather that its reliability is significantly if not dramatically reduced in comparison to the real/physical random event generation
Pseudo random number generation is simple and inexpensive to achieve - there are numerous software programs which can be utilized to create them and weave them into application with wonderful on screen displays - because there is no actual real/physical event generation taking place, there are no limits to the process except your processor speed in your computer - the "event" is in fact not an"event" at all but rather a simple "abstraction" of event - it is basically like pretending to have a party but not actually having one and then trying to make an analysis of how much fun you had if it had really happened - to the unsuspecting, it may seem like you had actually had a real/physical party with actual reactions and responses to the event - sorry, the party never was "as if" a party happened
Pseudo random generation processes are useful in things like hypothesizing changes in an economy or in the growth rate of a forest or population - here there is no interest in using the statistical behaviors to tease out evidence of subtle influences - they just want to grind out numbers and watch where they drift
In uses such as at Princeton where the subtle influences of intention are recorded, pseudo random number generation is ineffective and unreliable - it is my position and opinion that this also holds true in the area of subtle testing as developed in "energetic medicine" - the basic principle (as I understand it) is that the statistical behavior of real/physical random genertaion behavior is well known - any deviation from this behavior is evidence of an influence - the nature and/or mechanisms of this influence need not be recognized - what is important is that the evidence of the influence is made obvious in the information gathered from the real/physical random event generation - beyond that one may design numerous protocols to accumulate, analyse, repeat, restrict, pattern or value the information - what is parmount is that the generation source itself is in fact unbiased and non-deterministic
In a nutshell, even though it is easy to use, "pseudo random number generation" is not reliable for the purposes of subtle "energetic medicine" processes - "real/physical random event generation" processes are necessary to create the basis for statistical, pattern recognition of any design - you've got to have a real party to have real fun
be well
PS- I may have missed Kiran's reply so I will ask again - by what means do you encode the "signature of your many items? - this is a critical and fundamental principle in all this category of device - there are numerous methods - do you mind describing the manner in which you go about encoding items? (you may regard this as proprietary information, in which case I respect a more generalized response)
PSS - please excuse any and all typo's - my jet lag is playing funny tricks on me right now
Warning! None, of the above or anything on this site has been evaluated by the FDA, on the contrary Radionics is not considered a viable form of treatment in the USA. The CoRe-System is only intended for Export or for personal experimental use in the US. There are no claims made, if the words "cure", "treat", "diagnose" are used anywhere on this site or in the software it shall always be understood that his is meant in the context of "personal experimental use" only. For more details click here