“Coincidence is the word we use when we can’t see the levers and pulleys.” – Emma Bull
Daily Nugget of Gold 1555
Influencing Random Events
We’re on a trek to explore why reverse causality is probably a myth. On our way to that, we need to walk by the idea that random events can be influenced by the mind. While the effects of this are really tiny, they are indeed measurable and through statistical analysis we can show that “something strange is going on” when it’s tried.
A random number generator can be set up to produce a string of ones and zeros very quickly and in random fashion. There are a number of methodologies which can be employed to produce the randomness, too. Some of these are physical such as radioactive decay and entropy, and others are computational in approach. Scientists are well versed at this point in finding sources which reliably produce the random result desired. So how can we tell if mind can influence a physical or computational random number generator? We run experiments in which we ask participants to use their intent to create more ones or zeros, and then we carefully measure the results and see if we can spot an anomaly. What anomaly are we looking for? Less randomness.
We need to use statistical analysis at this point in order to determine whether or not something changed. Why statistics? Well, because the effects are too small to be noticed without them. This is as true in baseball as it is in science. In some scientific disciplines if you can reduce the element of chance to one in a thousand, they may give you a Nobel prize. Physicist Tom Campbell pointed out that if we reduce the odds of chance to one in a thousand, scientists are happy, one in ten thousand they are “deliriously happy”, but one in a billion? That’s as close to a proven result as you’re going to get.
So, is there evidence for the mind having the ability using intent alone to influence randomness? In a word, yes. Experiments have been run for decades now which show that this is not only possible, but it does happen, even though the effect is ever so slight. So what does all this have to do with the aspect of reverse-causality? We’re getting there, although slowly.
Suppose we design random event experiment where we would seemingly have to go back down the time line in order to produce less randomness, would the results we get be in line with what we can obtain by doing experiments in real time? If we ran such an experiment, wouldn’t that prove that reverse causality exists? Does your brain hurt at this point? Sorry about that. Let’s explore what happens when we try to influence what happened in the past with our intent from today, next time. Please join us, if you don’t- you might just end up wishing you had!
Question of the Day to Ask Ourselves
“What would I use my influence for if I could focus my intent on anything I wanted to and it worked?”
Copyright 2016 Kevin Littleton, all rights reserved.