I decided once again to raise this issue, because the issue for many people relevant. Indeed, the need to check the anomalous character of a place or subject, people have more often than test your psychic abilities.
The default for monitoring the abnormality, the program is FieldREGbut from my point of view, it is better to use the program Pear Classic package Reflector . Because I believe that any anomaly with the need includes having the observer as in quantum-mechanical theories, which, by the way, the creators of the device was trying to draw to explain the effects of psychokinesis.
The sequence of actions is the same as in the standard game Pear Classic just should not make any effort to pull the curve up or down. After 10 spins look General statistics - if it remained within the confidence 95% interval, it means nothing if out of range, then something is wrong
The use of Psyleron as sensor anomalistic
Re: Using Psyleron as sensor anomalistic
I'm sorry, but I would like some to criticize Your method.
Let's think logically, how are You going to distinguish "normal" readings from "abnormal"?
IMHO a holistic approach is safer, otherwise You'll be chasing noise.
Question number three, don't You think that abnormal activity can be discovered easier ways?
Let's think logically, how are You going to distinguish "normal" readings from "abnormal"?
It is not very convincing because only a single measured parameter, the variance of the possible probabilities. And what it has caused You and will not be able to find out.if she remained within the confidence 95% interval, so nothing special
IMHO a holistic approach is safer, otherwise You'll be chasing noise.
Question number two, how are You going to exclude the influence of so-called (by the developers of psyleron, by the way) "breath of the universal mind"? Which they already 12 years of study.Дмитрий__ wrote:Because I believe that any anomaly with the need includes having the observer as in quantum-mechanical theories, which, by the way, the creators of the device was trying to draw to explain the effects of psychokinesis.
Question number three, don't You think that abnormal activity can be discovered easier ways?
-
- Разработчик
- Posts:299
- Joined:Wed Dec 23, 2009 13:49
- Location:Институт высшей нервной деятельности и нейрофизиологии РАН
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Re: Using Psyleron as sensor anomalistic
Igor, I think You misunderstood me - I do not propose a method of finding the source of anomalies, and propose how to fix it IN PRINCIPLE.
I used the following assumption, already made in a previous post, but I will repeat it in a more explicit form:
The result of observation is an essential component of the triad of observer-observed is the result of the observation (can't remember what it's called in philosophy, such axioms are used in quantum mechanics, for example). Because of this assumption, the ANOMALY in the behavior of the device there is also a feature of this triad, and, therefore, to separate the observer from the observation result it is IMPOSSIBLE, whatever the outcome.
This assumption does not exclude the observer as a possible SOURCE of the anomaly, but the experiment proving this fact, and worked at Princeton - a topic for another discussion.
You, judging by Your comments
Generally, any course of so-called indirect logic with which we are dealing, in this case, based on some original concepts and assumptions to be taken as true. If they are accepted, then a possible discussion. If it is rejected, discussion is impossible.
Ready to hear Your point of view.
I used the following assumption, already made in a previous post, but I will repeat it in a more explicit form:
The result of observation is an essential component of the triad of observer-observed is the result of the observation (can't remember what it's called in philosophy, such axioms are used in quantum mechanics, for example). Because of this assumption, the ANOMALY in the behavior of the device there is also a feature of this triad, and, therefore, to separate the observer from the observation result it is IMPOSSIBLE, whatever the outcome.
This assumption does not exclude the observer as a possible SOURCE of the anomaly, but the experiment proving this fact, and worked at Princeton - a topic for another discussion.
You, judging by Your comments
this assumption do not accept or do not understand.what caused it You will never be able to figure out
Generally, any course of so-called indirect logic with which we are dealing, in this case, based on some original concepts and assumptions to be taken as true. If they are accepted, then a possible discussion. If it is rejected, discussion is impossible.
Other ways, of course. But I believe the so-called "instrument" of the ways this is optimal.Question number three, don't You think that abnormal activity can be discovered easier ways?
Ready to hear Your point of view.
- Владимир Никонов 2
- Автор сайта
- Posts:820
- Joined:Thu Oct 26, 2006 19:52
- Location:Краснодар
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 28 times
- Contact:
Re: Using Psyleron as sensor anomalistic
Is there progress in the search for anomalous zones?