Can the mind influence probability?

[Daecon]

Imagine an experiment:

 

Get 20-or-so people in a room and ask them all to concentrate on what side a rolled dice will land on (ie: six).

 

Roll the dice a couple of dozen times and record the frequency of the resulting number as they come up.

 

Does the number 6 come up with an average of 1/6 times, or more than that...?

[JohnB]

Firstly, to get any sort of accurate reading, you'd have to roll the dice a couple of thousand times.

 

Secondly, the only way you'd get 20 or so people to do this for any length of time would be by supplying copious amounts of alcohol.

 

This means that by the 200th throw, they'd;

 

a) Forget what number they were supposed to be thinking of,

b) Not be able to read to read the dice anyway, or

c) Argue about which dice they are supposed to be watching.

 

[Daecon]

Not really, 12 x 20 = 240.

 

If all the people were all thinking of the same number then it would be easy to check the frequency of that one number turning up...

[aj47]

Yes I believe so and many experiments have been conducted in a similar ways giving positive results.

 

For example clinical phycologist Brenda Dunne used an AREG (atomic random event generator) to produce a string of binary numbers which flipped a coin.

She then asked individuals and groups to concentrate the coin landing on a certain side and after literally hundreds of thousands of trials over years she discovered the volunteers had a significant effect on the outcome of the AREG.

 

Personally I think we all underestimate how much our mind and conscienceness can influence the physical world and outcomes of events.

[ecoli]

Yes I believe so and many experiments have been conducted in a similar ways giving positive results.

 

For example clinical phycologist Brenda Dunne used an AREG (atomic random event generator) to produce a string of binary numbers which flipped a coin.

She then asked individuals and groups to concentrate the coin landing on a certain side and after literally hundreds of thousands of trials over years she discovered the volunteers had a significant effect on the outcome of the AREG.

 

Personally I think we all underestimate how much our mind and conscienceness can influence the physical world and outcomes of events.

 

 

There doesn't sound like they have any reason to explain this phenonenon. Therefore, the evidence is based off of correlation, which isn't good enough to prove something, scientifically.

[aj47]

There doesn't sound like they have any reason to explain this phenonenon. Therefore, the evidence is based off of correlation, which isn't good enough to prove something, scientifically.

 

I would have to disagree with you as regardless of the experiments aims, the evidence along with other experiments is what most scienctist would call conclusive evidence. Even if it is not understood I don't think things like this should be overlooked like it is.

 

But yea even though I disagree with it, the theory behind the experiment ties in with the idea of a holographical universe which states that the universe is inextricably connected which includes consienceness and the physical world.

 

http://www.holomall.com/Holographic%20Universe.htm

[bascule]

This is the closest thing I've ever seen to this concept. People keep telling me to be more skeptical about them but, well, I haven't seen any particularly good arguments leveled against their methodology:

 

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/