MMI-shielding or MMI-proof REGs

One way of explore the phenomena is to find ways to block it somehow. I don’t have enough psi-powers to replicate MMI reliably, so I really wonder if anything is known about any means to block the manifestation in REGs either physically or by, lets say encrypting the input ?

Are there any known One-way functions that reliably hinder the effect? Since MMI effect is adaptive and can adjust to various inputs given we have feedback and training, I wonder if there is a reliable way to scramble the input to such extent that training wouldn’t be possible anymore. I’m thinking Post-quantum cryptography algorithms would be the best candidates to try, but to devise an experimental design effect size would need to be > 10%, not the 0.1-1% usually observed.

A little off-topic, but this question reminded me of Project Stargate and how the organizations involved had asked the question of if remote viewing could somehow be blocked (because of course the CIA don’t want those prying Russian remote-viewing eyes peeking at their secret documents now do they? :wink:

From what I remember they’d concluded no there isn’t a foolproof way to block, but the best countermeasure was to ‘distract’ them with more ‘appealing’ looking targets. I wonder if this concept could be applied to MMI… making a ‘control’/‘honeypot’ REG look more sexy to the one you’re trying to test somehow.

The idea of “blocking” MMI to learn more about it is indeed important. I have been working on a project to do just that. There are two basic concepts involved:

  1. Is it possible to build a shield that literally blocks the effect? and,
  2. Is it possible to algorithmically remove the effect from signals in which it already exists?

The first question is straight forward. Of the four forces recognized in physics, the weak and strong forces, gravity and electromagnetism, only electromagnetism is a candidate for a classical mediation field. The weak and strong forces work on atomic or molecular distances. Gravity and electromagnetism work over long distances, but the quanta of gravity, gravitons, interact too weakly (by many orders of magnitude) to be either generated or detected by any physical devices that might be used in MMI. That leaves only electromagnetism. However, electromagnetic fields are easily shielded against using a Faraday cage to enclose an experimental subject or a conducting box to shield the MMI generator. These tests have been performed many times, indicating there is no notable shielding of MMI when electromagnetic fields are excluded. The obvious conclusion is that MMI is not mediated by any of the classical fields.

The second question is harder due to the unusual properties of MMI. I noted elsewhere on this forum that an algorithm attributed to von Neumann can be used to de-bias a bit stream. That would be the opposite of bias amplification. The algorithm is 100% effective for a bit stream in which only bias is present. There are a few caveats to this statement: a) In any statistical measurement, the variation in expected results decreases in proportion to the square root of the number of bits tested. That means for short or any finite-length sequences, variations from a theoretical or “perfect” result will and must occur in a collection of tests. b) I have demonstrated clearly that other patterns or statistical deviations can be induced by mental influence. Most prominently, first-order autocorrelation can have an effect size as large as bias. Autocorrelation will not be removed by von Neumann’s algorithm, whereas the simple artifice of XOring the MMI sequence with a sequence of high-quality pseudorandom bits will remove any type of pattern. It should be noted, if one is not testing for autocorrelation, its presence will not be detected. Experience has shown that mental influence only shows up when a pattern is sought and the results displayed – a strong suggestion of quantum-like behavior. And c) In spite of all attempts to cancel or obscure MMI effects, a trained user can learn to “work around” the algorithm meant to remove the effects.

The conclusion for the second question is, the best one can do is to make the task as difficult as possible. That is another way of saying, to minimize the responsivity (effect size) of the MMI generator and any subsequent processing. The pseudorandom postprocessing method appears to be the simplest way of obscuring MMI effects in sequences in which they already exist. But…XOring with a pseudorandom sequence has been widely used in MMI generators (REGs) to compensate for defects in the baseline statistics of the generator itself. This is clearly not an effective method of cancelling the MMI results. The von Neumann de-biasing algorithm, which decreases the number of output bits by an average of 4 to 1, has not been tried.

While Mind-Enabled Devices can readily hit 10% effect sizes with an experienced user, it seems unlikely there will be an effective way to block mental influence as long as the user gets real-time feedback of the final results. With enough practice, even a purely pseudorandom number generator can be used to achieve significant results, although this is perhaps the most difficult challenge. This works because the user can select the timing of when to initiate the trial. Such results show that MMI effects can come both from affecting the probabilities of bits as they are generated as well as selecting the timing of trial initiation to correspond with desired results. Of course, the latter mode of effect can only occur if the pseudorandom generator is running continuously in the background.

We can hook up MMI to casino with deterministic scrambler.
We don’t know how to shield MMI with matter. But we can shield it with thoughts. Loads of influences from gamblers will ,probably, produce very much noise. What will effectively block ability to influence random coherently.

To clarify, most electronic games of chance, such as slot machines, select winnings using a pseudorandom number generator. The generator runs continuously in the background and the current number is selected when the player pushes the spin button. Pseudorandom generators produce numbers by running an algorithm, so they are called “deterministic” because their next output is determined solely by their design and the previous state of the algorithm.

It is not possible to affect the output of pseudorandom generators by mental influence. However, it is possible to affect the odds of winning a slot machine. This is done by the player being attuned to the results of the generator/machine (though not necessarily consciously) to the extent she or he can push the play button at the exact time the generator produces a winning output. This is a skill that can be learned by a process I call Calidetics, or learning to increase one’s positive luck. Two of us tested this skill at a nearby casino playing slots. We played for about 2 hours every weekend for over a year. The number of spins amounted to around 150,000 – enough to average out most expected statistical variations of the results. Precise accounting showed we were ahead in total winnings minus losses for the period. Anyone who plays this type of game knows that is virtually impossible if the odds had not been shifted in our favor.

Inability to affect Pseudo-RNG doesnt mean we can’t predict it using MMI as an interface for our precognition.

Yes, you are right.

Strictly speaking revealing the output of a pseudorandom generator using MMI is a type of clairvoyance since every output is deterministic, that is, already determined by its previous state.

You are right, But I’m talking about different matter.
What if we take REG, and will hook up it’s output to several thousands slot machines through scrambler of some kind.
If we do so, all players will use intention to get best possible results. But that intentions will drive output of REG to different results. So it will be more difficult to shift it’s distribution to satisfy one more pattern.
I think, it might work as MMI shielding.

Most tests I have seen or read about involve numbers of people with similar mental states or thoughts. Results seem to indicate this produces enhanced MMI effects.

The underlying effect of an MMI generator is to produce purely random numbers unless it is acted on by mental influence. If many people try to cause a different effect at the same time from the same generator, the results will likely appear closer to random due to mutual interference from multiple intentions. On the other hand, there may also be one dominant influence from the most skilled player. I would in general expect a more random outcome if the number of people involved is large. Kind of like a Central Limit Theorem for MMI.

yup.That’s what I told.
Also, problem with dominant influence can be solved with scrambler, which I told above. Even one flipped bit will produce completely different outcome.
Let’s imagine situation, where there are one most skilled player and 100 not very proficient ones. In case of scrambler, if we will try to map all possible influences on RNG to get positive outcome for player one, all of them will have max entropy on RNG output.

One of the unusual properties of MMI, noted in several published studies, is that a user (player) can learn to produce significant effect sizes regardless of the complexity of the REG or MMI generator. Postprocessing of REG output, for example to remove inherent bias of a poor generator, does not remove the expected results. From this I infer that scrambling the output of the MMI generator – equivalent to increasing the complexity of the generator output – will not prevent a skilled player from winning at an increased rate.

This odd behavior is a clue pointing to the quantum nature of MMI: entangled quantum systems are able to handle or process information beyond the possibility of any classical system. This is a fundamental difference between classical and quantum computers.

Nope. There is other reason to use scrambler. Precisely because MMI can surpass complexity of generator. Let me describe it:
So, there are player, who is trying to get jackpot. And his winning depends on random numbers, which are produced by REG with scrambler. If he’ll success, all possible outputs of REG before scrambler will have max entropy. Because he’ll influence random to fulfill HIS goals.
If we’ll use array of players, their minds will affect random in way to fulfill their goals. More players we use, more noise we will get.
So if we try to alter probability of 1 and 0 before scrambler with out mind, we’ll need to surpass psychic power of array of gamblers. Because all output states of REG, which they desire will be random enough to pass statistic tests.