posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:22 AM
I have serious doubts about the so called global consciousness project statistics and data analysis. Statistical methods are meant to be applied to
samples, not what amounts to be a census of an accumulated massive database of data. One can of course determine such things as population means and
variances, and one can talk about what a sample from such a mass of data may look like. But one cannot use the ENTIRE data set and all running
summary data to determine significance of anything.
Looking at accumulated z-scores over a decade or more of data and comparing this accumulated difference to some hypothetical theoretical value is not
a statistical test. It is statistical nonsense. These data were collected in a time period and that time period will be shown to be different if
ENOUGH data is examined. Such is the nature of randomness.
We can however propose a valid test of hypothesis to see if the next n events of a particular nature indicate what is believed to be a signal of
“global consciousness” occurs at a statistically significant rate greater than that which a control signals.
It would, of course, be incredibly important to know if there was an external influence on random number generation. There is at least one known
possibility that any random number generator which is dependent on radioactive decay may be affected by the location of the Earth about the sun
because the radioactive decay of certain isotopes appear to possibly be affected. Other unknown possibilities may exist. A reasonably constructed
control case which is running concurrently with the test case in time can correct for this potential problem.
To give the GCP people the benefit of the doubt for an obviously complex problem, they should study their existing data to date as thoroughly as
desired. They should then propose a type of event that they can monitor and that they also can monitor acceptance criteria that the event has
occurred and is valid to include. They should set a number of hours which they will monitor the random number streams, the statistic they propose to
use for a signal, and the signal criteria. The signal criteria should include a specific threshold figure to cross plus a minimum amount of time for
which the signal must exist before the “global consciousness” event may have been said to have occurred.
They should provide an estimated amount of time for 200 such events to occur. On an agreed upon starting date, they may begin monitoring for those
specific events publishing case by case the results as they occur. At the end of the estimated time for the 200 events, they should stop collecting
data. For each occurrence, they should record a 1 if they meet the criteria for a signal of "global consciousness," otherwise they will record a 0.
For the control, we will pick random times for sampling, one in each of the 200 equal time windows. These time windows should each be of the same
exact length as in the test case. We will form the same exact statistic based on the same random data streams. For the control, we will record a 1
if it meets the same exact criteria for a signal of "global consciousness," otherwise we will record a 0.
Once the data is complete, we can validly compare the results using a Fisher's Exact test. I'll bet there is no significant difference. If there
is, then this worth further study. If there isn't, then the website should quit claiming they may be detecting "global consciousness."