It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Synchronized Consciousness Changes Random Systems

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 




I just don't see how they arrived at the conclusion that something called 'global consciousness' as a cause of these deviations. Were there no deviations on days where there was no significant events? I don't think they mentioned that.


From above, I bolded the key word.


Quantum event based random number generators (RNGs) produce completely unpredictable sequences of zeroes and ones. But when a great event synchronizes the feelings of millions of people, our network of RNGs becomes subtly structured. The probability is less than one in a billion that the effect is due to chance.





Were there no deviations on days where there was no significant events? I don't think they mentioned that.


Yes there are. They mention it with words, and by letting you look at the data.

With large events that "creep" into the "collective consciousness" or "the minds" or "awareness" of people on this planet, the deviations between the "norm" become great, so great that the probability of seeing a random system (as produced by millions of random 1's and O's) deviate to that degree by chance is less than one and a billion.




Look at the plots on the daily tables on july 22nd 2001 vs the ones on september 11th. They almost look identical. Now how does one assume from these findings that consciousness is at all at play here?


You are looking at the same pictures posted above that the person did not understand the relevance of the graphs in the OP. I have explained it above but I will try again. Reading the posts does help


Those photos show the ENTIRE DAY, we are looking at SMALL MOMENTS of that day.

It is explained in the OP before each graph showing what the graphs represent. As the "news" of certain events "spread" across the planet, the "random" nature of the RNG's deviated from the "norm" to a degree that would rule out a "chance" of seeing such a deviation to have occurred alongside those specific time periods of the day (not the ENTIRE day).

Hope that helps.

Namaste
edit on 18-11-2012 by SyntheticPerception because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyntheticPerception
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 




I just don't see how they arrived at the conclusion that something called 'global consciousness' as a cause of these deviations. Were there no deviations on days where there was no significant events? I don't think they mentioned that.


From above, I bolded the key word.


Quantum event based random number generators (RNGs) produce completely unpredictable sequences of zeroes and ones. But when a great event synchronizes the feelings of millions of people, our network of RNGs becomes subtly structured. The probability is less than one in a billion that the effect is due to chance.





Were there no deviations on days where there was no significant events? I don't think they mentioned that.


Yes there are. They mention it with words, and by letting you look at the data.

With large events that "creep" into the "collective consciousness" or "the minds" or "awareness" of people on this planet, the deviations between the "norm" become great, so great that the probability of seeing a random system (as produced by millions of random 1's and O's) deviate to that degree by chance is less than one and a billion.




Look at the plots on the daily tables on july 22nd 2001 vs the ones on september 11th. They almost look identical. Now how does one assume from these findings that consciousness is at all at play here?


You are looking at the same pictures posted above that the person did not understand the relevance of the graphs in the OP. I have explained it above but I will try again. Reading the posts does help


Those photos show the ENTIRE DAY, we are looking at SMALL MOMENTS of that day.

It is explained in the OP before each graph showing what the graphs represent. As the "news" of certain events "spread" across the planet, the "random" nature of the RNG's deviated from the "norm" to a degree that would rule out a "chance" of seeing such a deviation to have occurred alongside those specific time periods of the day (not the ENTIRE day).

Hope that helps.

Namaste
edit on 18-11-2012 by SyntheticPerception because: (no reason given)


Although I don't appreciate the condescension—something that doesn't suit yet seems common among people who like to appear pious by saying namaste—I do appreciate you clearing it up a bit.

Yet no where is there any evidence of such a thing as global consciousness existing. Where is that data? There's a huge assumption here that somehow something called global consciousness effects random data. There's nothing on the whole site that shows consciousness has an effect on anything at all.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I find this very interesting, and personally, I think we do have a sort of noosphere in which our collective thoughts gather and it influences events....

Yet I have to agree with the Misanthrope- there is no evidence of it to point to as the explanation for this phenomena.

For example, someone who is religious could claim that the effect is caused by God's getting fed up and pissed.
Or I know some people who believe the movie The Matrix was descibing reality- and they could say you are just seeing the patterns in the matrix (which aliens have programmed in, to keep us being nice little batteries...).

I admit I find the site a bit much to understand and navigate through- I couldn't find the evidence of this noosphere anywhere. Did I miss it??



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





Although I don't appreciate the condescension—something that doesn't suit yet seems common among people who like to appear pious by saying namaste—I do appreciate you clearing it up a bit.


If my words came off condescending I do apologize, it was not the intent. Perhaps I was slightly frustrated because I had just typed the same thing to another poster above that question, so my reply (words) echoed some of that frustration. I apologize


As for the "namaste" comment you have made, if you feel I say it to appear "pious" that could not be further from the truth. If that is how me saying it makes you feel, you are projecting those feelings on to me, You do not know me other than through words over the internet, to think you know my intent is an assumption..

I do not say it for any "religious" reasons at all.

For me saying "namaste" is a subtle reminder for myself to respect "others" and their viewpoints while I engage in discussion here on ATS. It is a reminder for me that although we may disagree at times, it is important to respect your views.

I admit some people may use the term to sound "special" or to be privy to some religious gnosis. To generalize everyone who uses the term into the same group would be a mistake in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   


For example, someone who is religious could claim that the effect is caused by God's getting fed up and pissed.
reply to post by Bluesma
 


In my opinion not really. Someone who is religious could say "God" caused the events (911) to happen because it was fed up and pissed at humanity.

They could say "God" influenced the deviation in the random pattern of 1's and 0's perhaps causing the incedent to happen in the first place.

I don't think they could say "God" caused the effect to happen though.

The effect is "us" noticing the deviation in a random system at certain times.

Perhaps a religious person could say "God" gave us the ability to notice the extreme deviation from a random system. That would depend on how one views "God".

That interpretation of "God" would compare the word "God" to science, and it seems "God" and "Science" do not mix well


Depending on who you ask.

edit on 19-11-2012 by SyntheticPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   


Yet I have to agree with the Misanthrope- there is no evidence of it to point to as the explanation for this phenomena.


I see it more as a "Hey, were are beginning to notice a correlation here between "A" and "B". Interesting. Let us continue down this avenue of research and see if the correlation continues"

I do not see it as "We have proof that consciousness creates reality" or "We have proof that consciousness reacts to events before they happen"

I just happen to find it interesting, thought I would share it

edit on 19-11-2012 by SyntheticPerception because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join