In relation to the letter by Jean Burns with regard to the Decision
Augmantation Theory, I have these comments to make:
It is my opinion that the DAT analysis cannot reject the influence model
of psi, as it claims to do. Its interpretation of the mathematical
analysis result is not correct! This is because the type of dependence of
effect size on the number of events generated, is dangerously disregarded.
I base my opinion on (a) experimental evidence, part of which comes from
my own tests, and (b) a mathematical analysis that I'm currently
doing on my RNG data to determine whether (or not) the data are influenced
and the extend and type of influence.
I intend to present this work and offer it for discussion at the European
SSE conference this October, to which I've already sent an abstract.
In relation to my argument above I put the following questions to you ALL:
Q1. If the z^2 vs n graph of the DAT analysis is a horizontal line
for the intention data, what will the same graph be for the no intention
data? Horizontal or slanted?
Q2. If it is slanted, wouldn't that suggest the presence of
influence in the whole of intention-no intention data (parent
Q3. If it is horizontal, wouldn't that imply, according to the
DAT interpretation, the lack of influence and the presence of selection,
precognition and good timing with regard to the data under *no
Q4. More specifically: If the no intention (control) data restore
the intention data distribution to the calibration Gaussian, according to
the reported evidence, by what action of precognition/selection has this
taken place in the total absence of intention???
My position is, according to the Balancing Effect Theory (BET), that the
parent distribution only 'looks' unperturbed. The psi property of
consciousness *influences* the probability space of random events by some
(yet unknown) mechanism, while a natural-physical phenomenon of
self-balancing, self-adjusting, self-cleansing (if you like) counter
mechanism relaxes probability tensions (when they reach a certain
threshold) and brings the isolated system back to its unperturbed state,
before it gets deformed again by psi. The two mechanisms could be isolated
and studied separately under certain testing conditions. Otherwise, they
will mix and yield not only low effect sizes, but also such as to appear
independent of the number of events generated, n.
By the way, if you have RNG data available (intention and no intention)
I'd like to run a test on them to determine the presence or not of
influence as I have done on my data, and I'll let you know the result.
You can send the random numbers by email (I guess).