Does God Play Dice with the Universe?
Richard Stone and Rixon Stewart
 
“Physics has had to accept the indignity of the Principles of Uncertainty… instead of billiard ball particles like electrons, there are probability waves, instead of matter composed of particles and energy composed of waves there is light made of particles and objects made of matter waves. In this surreal sub-atomic world matter has ceased to have any solid form and has no more than a tendency to exist.” From ‘The Facts Of Life’ by Richard Milton
 
England’s churches are empty, their tiny congregations consist mainly of the elderly whilst the buildings themselves are looked upon as monuments – memorials to a tradition that some would say had outlived its usefulness. In its place there is a new God, an almighty God whose word is accepted virtually without question and whose name is Science.
 
Most of us have been brought up to believe that there is no system of thought more dependable than modern science. This belief originated in the brilliant scientific discoveries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; Newton’s explanation of the fundamental laws of physics made the Old Testament’s description of creation seem rather quaint and obscure. Scientific medicine has beaten back the traditional killer diseases such as cholera, TB, Bubonic Plague and Typhus; whilst even the endemic tropical diseases such as malaria, Yellow Fever and the Tsetse fly have fallen under the control of modern science. Add to that the fact that modern conveniences such as electric power, effective plumbing systems and motorcars have transformed the lives of millions and it’s easy to see why science has achieved such authority.
 
Science has probed into the mechanics of matter as deeply as it can, achieving stunning results in every field. It is therefore not surprising that it has become the paramount belief system; in effect it has become a modern day religion.
 
But science has reached a sticking point and unbeknown to many this sticking point was reached a long time ago. In the earlier part of the last century scientists explained the mechanics of the atom, which was once considered the irreducible unit of matter. We were all taught about the proton, the neutron, and the electron but even in Einstein’s time, as early as the 1930’s, scientists were discovering the more convoluted world of the sub-atomic particle: particles even smaller than the atom such as the quark, the photon, the neutrino. Ever since then scientists have been engaged in with this challenging research: called ‘Quantum Physics,’’ Sub-Atomic Physics’ or ‘Particle Physics,’ it has largely been ignored by the general public in favour of the more spectacular scientific endeavours like space shots.
 
Yet research into particle physics is revealing a world far stranger than that yet encountered by space research. In this strange and elusive world there are particles with energy but zero mass (photons); there are also uncharged, unreactive particles with so little mass that they can fly through the earth as easily as a machine gun bullet passes through a bank of fog (neutrino).
 
In one notable experiment a particle was shot through a screen with a hole in it, the particle would go through the hole but scientists found it very difficult to say how often – but if two holes were made it actually seemed to pass through less often. One researcher remarked that ‘it is though it knew what we were up to’; indeed the researchers concluded that they could not conduct the experiment without becoming part of the experiment themselves.
 
Pinpointing the location of sub-atomic particles is also notoriously difficult. Some of them cannot be precisely located even though they are known to be present, but this is not for lack of method – it is the nature of the particles themselves. It is even thought that some particles have the ability to appear, and then disappear.
 
These almost magical qualities seem to defy logic, turning the laws that govern sub atomic physics into something that wouldn’t be out of place in Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’. The Chaos Theory, which is a way of explaining the behaviour of sub atomic particles, is a case in point; essentially it states that even very small occurrences can cause massive changes later on in a chain of interlinked events. Thus, say proponents of the Chaos Theory, the flapping of a Butterfly’s wings can ultimately lead to a tornado.
 
At this point the man in the street probably parts company with the scientists, who are after all supposed to be the high priests of our earth bound logic. Yet many of these scientists have separately come to one similar and rather disconcerting conclusion: namely that the neat mechanical logic of Newtonian physics breaks down completely when science is confronted with the world of sub-atomic physics.
 
Could it be that this mysterious, puzzling world is in fact the world of the spirit – the spiritual world that saints and mystics throughout history have sought to explore and reveal?
 
Einstein’s famous remark ‘God does not play dice with the universe is a clue,’ because maybe God does play dice with the universe – but according to his own bewildering set of rules. The gambling analogy is quite appropriate. Have you ever been gambling with a friend and felt miserably certain that your friend would win and you would lose? The winner usually possesses a healthy joie de vivre while the loser often harbours a sombre pessimism. In a sense this is an experiment with sub atomic particles because the dice, like everything else, contain sub atomic particles and it is impossible to experiment with them without affecting the experiment oneself. Perhaps the winner ‘pleases’ the particles whilst the pessimist ‘displeases’ them.
 
Nor are these the only examples of scientific research that lead us back toward a more spiritual perspective on reality. Dr. Hugh Ross in his book ‘Creator and the Cosmos’ describes how scientists can set up a computerised model of the cosmos as it relates to the creation of life on earth. But one factor makes life on this planet seem so improbable as to be virtually impossible. Life on earth needs certain amounts of heavy elements such as iron to exist. Scientists are agreed that the explosion of a supernova creates heavy elements, but if the supernova were too close when it exploded it would have damaged the earth too badly for it to support life. On the other hand if it were too far away there would not have been enough of the required heavy elements on earth to support life. The odds against getting the balance right were enormous, so poor in fact that it should have never have happened. And that was only one of at least eight different factors essential for life with similarly phenomenal odds against a favourable outcome.
 
There is a similar puzzle in the field of Biology. Science theorises that lightening striking a pond full of protein molecules created life on earth. It is possible to put this scenario into a computer model, bringing together all the complex protein molecules to form still more complex molecules, ultimately building a computer model of primitive life. Something like building a Lego model of vast complexity with various components swimming into precisely the right position quite by chance. But once again, according to the mathematical laws this should never have happened, and moreover, even if it did there is no proof whatsoever that lightening would make the end product live.
 
So why did it happen, if indeed it did?
 
As Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle put it, “A Super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”
 
Another point of contention between the scientists and the creationists is evolution, but both camps have ignored the obvious fact that their ideas do not necessarily contradict each other. For example, it could argued that man was created by a spiritual power and then evolved to his present state; on the other hand it could also be contended that man evolved and was then ‘chosen’ by higher powers to develop still further. Both ideas encompass the two viewpoints, but the real sticking point is the Darwinists insistence that mankind evolved from Apes. This theory has always infuriated Christian fundamentalists but the idea is an understandable one for scientists, given the obvious similarities between apes and men. Crucially however, no ‘missing link’ has never been found, and every time a new candidate is discovered, human remains older than the ‘missing link’ are unearthed.
 
Far more problematic for the Darwinists is the total lack of evidence for an evolutionary link between reptiles and mammals. Mammals have a single lower jaw, reptiles have six; mammals have six ear bones while reptiles have one; so it should be a simple matter to come up with a few fossils of a ‘missing link’ between these two huge families in the animal kingdom, but not a single such fossil has ever been found. Even more problematic is the question of the history of the universe, its beginning and its end. One cannot be but stunned when one reads of the depth and brilliance of scientific researches into this question: ‘from Einstein’s work on general relativity came the recognition that there must be an origin for matter and energy and from Penrose, Hawking and Ellis’s work came the acknowledgment that there must be an origin for space and time too.’ (1)
 
It seems that just before the Big Bang there was a state called ‘Singularity’, a state of infinite density and unlimited temperature; which begins to sound uncomfortably like a super-natural state and once again science has tried to get out of this but could not. The universe, say scientists, is expanding after the Big Bang and can be contracted in a scientific model back to 10 -34 seconds after the event. Speculation abounds about this tiny interval of time, but the model has not been disproved and probably never will be.
 
So science has no explanation for the beginning, nor it seems, the end. What we are left with is Stephen Hawking’s conclusion that the universe begins and ends in ‘singularities’ where the laws of physics and materialistic science simply do not work. Which calls to mind the words, ‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,’ because the scientific evidence is beginning to point to an absolute power, an almighty creative force that is beyond the realm of human understanding, a God if you like.
 
However this article is not intended to direct the reader to any one particular form of spiritual belief but rather toward spiritual investigation as a whole. Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are all good starting points, particularly if one looks at the original source material -- because religions tend to become distorted over time due to misinterpretation and the machinations of those in power. So start at the beginning and enjoy the journey, because like the story, it’s a never-ending one.
(1) Fingerprints Of The Gods.
 
Sources: ‘Creator and Cosmos’ and ‘The Fingerprints of the Gods’ by Hugh Ross. ‘In Search Of The Edge Of Time’ by John Gribbin. ‘The Facts Of Life’ by John Milton.

Me thinks {archaic English}, your googled image response {an open sewer}, reflects solely on where you seem to be coming from; And Not I!
 
Psalm 5:9 {NIV}.. Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with destruction. Their throat is an open grave; With their tongue they speak deceit.
 
Incidentally {pennine}; I don't dispute your right, to regard anything or anyone, as your mindset determines; But it's just that any person can give themselves over to deceiving {demonic}, spirits; To the point which, they're unable to separate, what Could be True; And arbitrarily regard such thoughts as being contemptible. Simply because their inner {evil} 'voices' told them so.
 
For the record; It isn't all that different "pennine"..{regarding the process itself}; Than someone going on a random shooting spree; And later claiming that a 'voice in their head' {or similar wording}; Told them to do so! --

 No they don't. They can be explained mathematically.
 
 All scientists, not many, are aware of the differences in Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. It's not "disconcerting". How is math disconcerting? These are emotional pleas from your hero, Hugh to grab followers again.
 
Any 2nd year physics student can describe the differences that Hugh has such issues with.
 
 That's easy. No.
 That's absolutely ridiculous. Dice are governed by probability, not the gambling deity.
 That's completely false and unsubstantiated. Observe from the Max Planck Institute:
Where does iron come from? According to astrophysicists, iron, like all other heavy elements, is created in the center of massive stars, and is expelled into space once these stars explode as supernovae at the end of their lives. The material then mixes with the interstellar matter and may form new stars and planetary systems. Our solar system was formed after several generations of stars and therefore contains enough heavy elements like iron, oxygen etc. to form Earth-like planets and to sustain life. Prof. Günther Hasinger and Dr. Stefanie Komossa of the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik in Germany and Dr. Norbert Schartel of the European Space Agency ESA in Spain made a surprising discovery: spectral observations carried out with the X-ray observatory XMM-Newton showed that the young quasar APM 08279+5255 contains a three times larger iron fraction than our own Solar System which is much older. We observe the quasar at a time when the Universe had an age of only about 1.5 billion years; in contrast, our sun was formed 9 billion years after the Big Bang. This is significant in that the center of this young quasar already contains a larger fraction of iron than our much older solar system. Either there is a previously unknown, much more efficient way of producing iron, or, at the time when the quasar emitted its light the universe was already older than expected ( ApJ Letters Vol. 573, L77, July 10, 2002).
 
Clearly Hugh cannot make claims such as the probability of iron in our solar system, when the availability of iron levels is in doubt.
 
More Hugh Hogwash.
 When do you plan on making arguments that weren't disproven? From Wikipedia
In reptiles, the eardrum is connected to the inner ear via a single bone, the stapes or stirrup, while the upper and lower jaws contain several bones not found in mammals. Over the course of the evolution of mammals, one lower and one upper jaw bone (the articular and quadrate) lost their purpose in the jaw joint and were put to new use in the middle ear, connecting to the stapes and forming a chain of three bones (collectively called the ossicles) which amplify sounds and allow more acute hearing. In mammals, these three bones are known as the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and stirrup respectively).
The evidence that the malleus and incus are homologous to the reptilian articular and quadrate was originally embryological, and since this discovery an abundance of transitional fossils has both supported the conclusion and given a detailed history of the transition.[2] The evolution of the stapes was an earlier and distinct event.[3][4]
 
 Exactly. Why is that so difficult? Science cannot know precisely the origins of the universe, because it is clearly untestable, unmeasurable, and unduplicatable.
So how can religion know? Because science cannot explain something does not mean, automatically that the deity did it. That's absurd. We simply do not know.
 
If you wanna believe in a deity, go for it. Stop carrying water for Hugh Ross and just believe already.
 
Besides, Hugh didn't write Fingerprints of the Gods. Graham Hancock did. I read that book. Hugh wrote Fingerprint of God. If the article can't even source correctly, how can it be taken seriously?
 
pennine: That photo disturbs me. Good choice.
 
--SoCo

Obviously, we both {through our own free will}, have adopted different and often conflicting mindsets, that suits our respective world-views.
Even to the point of 'facts' being in dispute; Which isn't the first time, in any number of forums; And Lord knows, won't be the last!
 
Do I care to take the time to rebut your views 'point-by-point,' as it were? Frankly, it aint worth my time investment, required.
 
Partly, because the way you like to 'blow off' certain posed questions, that were raised in my own {copy & paste} post, without any referenced substantiation; While criticizing me, for an article I chose to post; That at worst; Arguably is 'guilty' of similar debating deficiencies.
 
Two examples; You in effect 'blew off' the suggested possibility, that the largely mysterious world of 'quantum physics,' 'might be' {and Not, is}, suggestive of a 'spiritual dimension.' Your response? "That's easy; No." - Wow!; You must have an immense amount of knowledge 'SC'; To arbitrarily dismiss that possibility, in only 3 words! -- Care to share how deciding that, was {for yourself}, a 'No brainer' answer, to a posed, non-assertive question?
 
Another portion of your response that comes to {my} mind; Was your scoffing, 'blowing-off' attitude, to the possibility {and Not, established premise}; That the rolling of dice, conceivably could be influenced, by ones positive or negative attitude, Re. the prospect of 'winning.'
 
I can only attribute that response on your part; To your ignorance of documented research, that random-number-generators, {approximating, the human 'rolling'-of-dice}; Can be influenced, by human thought! {'Google' that fiend.. I mean, 'friend'!}.
 
To recap; A point-by-point rebuttle, this is Not!; Plus, that 'Facts' are/have been, in dispute; Is as "old as the hills"! .. Oh yeah; Did I mention that all the while, 'tempus fugit'?!; As in, I have other things to tend to?! ..

 I critized you AND the article.
 
 Yes I did. I also dismiss leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. Just because you don't understand wave/particle duality, don't get a deity involved. Learn some higher math if you really care to understand.
 Ever heard of the Randi challenge? Google that. Human thought does NOT influence random-number generators or dice-rolling or lottery numbers or any other system that is chance driven. If you don't believe me, then have John Edward channel Edgar Cayce and he can then channel a spirit from Atlantis to explain it to you while finding water with a stick and bending a spoon.
 
Hugh Ross is a scam. Deal with it. You wanna believe in a deity, go for it. You don't need science to justify your beliefs if you ACTUALLY have faith. That's what faith means.
 
--SoCo

'SC' said: "Hugh Ross is a Scam. Deal with it."
 
My Reply: Merely by stating something; Doesn't make it so! ..D-U-H?!
 
It would be the easiest thing in the world, for me to use the exact same words, regarding you, and the people that agree with you; And 'mean it'! ..But what would that prove?!; Not a Whole Lot! --
 
'SC' said: "You don't need science to justify your beliefs, if you ACTUALLY {your emphasis} have faith. That's what faith means."
 
What you consign to a separate category 'SC'; Ie.'Science'; As somehow being far removed; From God, {or from your own 'pov'.. the concept of a God}; Has a much greater cause & effect relationship; Than a person of your own stated views, will perhaps ever realize!
 
I find it interesting, that you fault me {and "Hugh Ross"}, for employing 'science' as a sort of a confirming aspect, of a Deity; Since others, from the same 'school-of-thought' you're defending; Would accuse us 'Believers' of having 'Blind Faith'; If we did Not appeal to an area of knowledge, outside of, the Bible itself !!
 
As for the 'Randi Challenge' {'aka' "James Randi, Magician Challenge"}; Once again 'SC'; You're misrepresenting something; As if it's an 'open & shut' case, in your own 'pov' {point-of-view}, favor; When there {apparently} are many 'online' arguments, to the contrary!.. {see below} -- From, dailygrail.com {this particular source reference, in its entirety, appears at the end of this rather long, copy-and-paste}.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge
By Greg
Created 22 Feb 2008 - 5:24am
 
For ten years, the modern skeptical movement has wielded a cudgel against claims of the paranormal: the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge [1]. In many debates over the possibility of psi abilities, the Challenge provides a final word for one side... [Randi's Million] "has so-and-so applied for the Challenge?" The financial reward offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation is seen by many skeptics as providing an irresistible motivation for anybody with paranormal ability - after all, if someone could genuinely exhibit such powers, surely they would step forward to take the million?
 
However, after ten years, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) says nobody has even got past their preliminary testing. Furthermore, none of the 'big fish' - medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne - have applied (although Sylvia Browne did accept [2] James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further). And now, perhaps as a result of that fact, James Randi has announced that the Challenge will come to an end in two years, on March 6th, 2010.
 
But does the challenge really make a statement about the existence of the paranormal and/or psi abilities? According to paranormal investigator Loyd Auerbach (who, like Randi, is a member of the magic fraternity):
 
The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd on many levels.
 
The procedures for the Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple "outs" for Randi and the JREF that any discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary human performance would think twice about (and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like).
 
What are these hurdles that Auerbach refers to?
 
Chances, of Anything...
 
First, and perhaps the most important, is the effect size required to win the challenge. While the JREF says that "all tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant", this does not mean that the tests are fair scientific tests. The JREF need to protect a very large amount of money from possible "long-range shots", and as such they ask for extremely significant results before paying out - much higher than are generally accepted in scientific research [3] (and if you don’t agree to terms, your application is rejected). In the case of parapsychological research, however, where effect size is often small (though apparently robust), this means most researchers would have to go to extraordinary lengths to win the million dollars. As one psi researcher pointed out to me:
 
In the ganzfeld telepathy test [4] the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%. If that 32% hit rate is the "real" telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials. One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours, or about 1,483 total hours. Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day. So we have to potentially recruit 989 x 2 people to participate, an experimenter who will spend 4+ years running these people day in and day out, and at the end we'll end up with p < 0.005. Randi will say those results aren't good enough, because you could get such a result by chance 5 in 1,000 times. Thus, he will require odds against chance of at least a million to 1 to pay out $1 million, and then the amount of time and money it would take to get a significant result would be far in excess of $1 million.
 
Furthermore, applicants must first pass a 'preliminary test', before they are allowed to progress to the actual 'formal' test which pays the million dollars. So an applicant must first show positive results in a preliminary test (yielding results against chance of at least 1000 to 1, apparently [5]), then once through to the next stage they would then have to show positive results against much higher odds to claim the prize (by all reports, at odds of around 1 million to 1). Failure in either test means no cash prize, and a fail beside their name. It many respects it would be like telling a professional golfer to shoot 63 around Augusta National, then come back and shoot 59, to prove that he can play golf. In the words of Chris Carter, author of Parapsychology and the Skeptics:
 
If Randi were genuinely interested in testing unusual claims, then he would also not insist upon odds of at least one million to one against chance for the results. Anyone familiar with scientific studies will be aware that experimental results against chance of say, 800,000 to one would be considered extraordinary; but results this high would be, according to Randi, a “failure.”
 
Dr Michael Sudduth of San Francisco State University also pointed out to me a wonderful irony in one of the rules. Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”
 
Researchers Step Up to the Plate
 
As a consequence, you might well say "no wonder no serious researcher has applied for the Challenge." Interestingly, this is not the case. Dr Dick Bierman [6], who has a PhD in physics, informed me that he did in fact approach James Randi about the Million Dollar Challenge in late 1998. Bierman reported a success in replicating the presentiment experiments of Dr Dean Radin [7] (where human reactions seem to occur marginally before an event occurs), and was subsequently asked by Stanley Klein of the University of California why, if his results for psi effects were positive and replicable, he didn't respond to Randi's challenge. Bierman replied that he would rather invest his time in good scientific research, rather than convincing skeptics in a one-off test. However, after further discussion, he decided that he may be able to combine the two:
 
After some exchange of ideas I was brought into contact with Randi. Randi sounded sincerely interested and I worked out a proposal for an interesting experiment that would last about a year. Experimental effects in this type of research are small and require a lot of measurements to reach the required statistical significance (I think Randi wanted a p-value of 0.000001).
 
Note that he didn't insist on showing the effect on stage. Rather I proposed to do a kind of precognition (actually presentiment) experiment on-line over Internet where he or some other independent skeptic could generate the targets once the responses were communicated over the Internet (all this would be done automatically on a computer under his control within a second). This would prevent cheating from the experimenter's side but we still had to work out how to prevent cheating from the Randi-side.
 
At that point Randi mentioned that before proceeding he had to submit this preliminary proposal to his scientific board or committee. And basically that was the end of it. I have no idea where the process was obstructed but I must confess that I was glad that I could devote myself purely to science rather than having to deal with the skeptics and the associated media hypes.
 
Bierman said I should also contact Suitbert Ertel, Professor Emeritus of Georg-August-University of Göttingent, who has developed a new type of parapsychology experiment [8] which seems to facilitate large-scale psi effects - which would be much more suited to the Randi challenge. Ertel, I was told, had apparently also discussed the challenge with James Randi, after his results had been replicated by other skeptical researchers. Ertel replied to my query by explaining his involvement with not just Randi's challenge, but also a separate 'Prize Challenge' offered by a German skeptical group:
 
My first approach [to Randi] was made because I thought the prize might be achieved by the Gauquelin planetary effect, a statistical "paranormal" or "neo-astrological" effect, with which I was very familiar as researcher. The problem was that decisions regarding the sample which would amount to 1000 natal charts was dependent on much informed thought, and Randi didn't know how to deal with the conditions. So the correspondence came to an end.
 
The second approach was made because I had applied to win the prize of 10,000 EURO which the German GWUP promised to give to someone who would be able to demonstrate large psi effects. Winning this prize would have been considered by Randi as passing his preliminary test, his first test which must be passed before someone is allowed to apply for Randi's main $1 000 000 test.
 
The psi effect demanded, even for the GWUP test = Randi's preliminary test, was so large that I was not hopeful that I would be able to show so much of psi, with the help of my psi-gifted students which I selected by my "pingpong ball test". My only goal was to achieve a statistically significant effect so as to make the skeptics admit that they observed a significant psi effect. This goal was achieved by my first test trial (one psi-gifted participant) in 2005. In 2006 another test was conducted with the presence of GWUP people: two of my students, psi-gifted in earlier tests, participated. In this test the effect was not significant.
 
One of the apparent reasons for this failure was that the skeptics had changed the conditions of this test arbitrarily in many ways so that the participants felt uneasy under strong control - such feelings have psi-reducing effects.
 
Ertel's first test with the GWUP had a p value of .018. He mentioned however, that two additional students among a number of observers also participated, secretly, during the test. Their results were also significant, giving a total significance p-value of .002. Ertel told me that the GWUP skeptics, to their credit, did note the results of the two students who had participated secretly.
 
Ertel thinks that the Million Dollar Prize is winnable, though obviously the odds required are not 'fair' scientifically. However, as one of the rules is that applicants must pay all their own expenses, he estimates that he would need at least $US10,000 to make a ‘long shot’ bid for the formal challenge. He would also like to have a personal attorney present and another independent scientist as observer, and would need to select 3-4 psi-gifted participants near the JREF institution where the tests would be performed:
 
But winning the prize would not be my main concern. My main concern is to achieve high levels of significance under control by the skeptics. Psi effects would have to be acknowledged as existent by the science community if they were achieved, i.e. replicated (because they would have been observed before the Randi test was made) with, say, p = .0001 - it need not be .000001. Winning the Randi prize is no scientific standard for acknowledging the existence of causal effects. P = .0001 or so obtained under control of people who are experts in deception (so that this factor is ruled out) and whose intention and bias is to prove that psi does NOT exist (so bias is also ruled out) would let psi appear existent beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Would You Trust This Man?
 
Ertel's mention of the expenses required to engage in Randi's challenge, returns us to to the "hurdles" mentioned by Loyd Auerbach. Perusing the rules [9] of the Million Dollar Challenge would certainly give most people cause for concern. Two of the most important, especially when combined, are rules #4 and #8:
 
4. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the setup, the protocol, and the actual testing, may be used freely by the JREF.
 
8. When entering into this challenge, as far as this may be done by established legal statutes, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and/or against any persons peripherally involved, and/or against the James Randi Educational Foundation. This applies to injury, and/or accident, and/or any other damage of a physical and/or emotional nature, and/or financial and/or professional loss, and/or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize, once it is properly won in accord with the protocol.
 
In other words, applicants give the JREF/Randi virtually absolute license to use the data as best suits their publicity needs, without any legal recourse for the participant. Not exactly enticing for an applicant, although if James Randi was held in higher esteem by the parapsychology research community then it might not matter so much. However, a number of scientists iterated to me their distrust of Randi...and a number of them appear to have good reason for that judgement. When I asked Rupert Sheldrake about the Million Dollar Challenge – a scientist who has investigated ‘telephone telepathy’, the sense of being stared at, and possible psychic talents in animals, Sheldrake told me quite simply: "I don’t take the prize seriously, and above all I don’t trust Randi since I’ve found him to be dishonest...He is not a scientist, has no scientific credentials, and is essentially a showman and an expert in deception". Sheldrake pointed out a previous confrontation as evidence for his distrust of James Randi:
 
The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.
 
I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.
 
I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."
 
Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.
 
Dr Gary Schwartz has often come under attack from James Randi for his research into mediumship. Labelled "Gullible Gary" by Randi, and accused of believing in the tooth fairy, Dr Schwartz refused an invitation from Randi to allow an "independently qualified panel" to hold forth on the data he has collected. According to Dr Schwartz: "He calls it an 'independently qualified panel', but it is composed mostly of people hand-picked to guarantee the decision would likely be a foregone conclusion, merely rubber-stamping his prejudices". In this case, Randi suggested a panel comprising of Ray Hyman (CSICOP Fellow), Marvin Minsky (CSICOP Fellow), Michael Shermer (CSICOP Fellow) and Stanley Krippner (a parapsychologist whom Randi is familiar with). Not exactly “independent”, one would surmise. Unfortunately, according to Dr Schwartz:
 
James Randi has a history of engaging in the twisting of the truth...Randi's recommendation of Dr. Krippner was certainly acceptable to me. However, when I contacted Dr. Krippner directly to see if Mr. Randi’s statement about him serving on the panel was correct, Dr. Krippner was concerned. Dr. Krippner explained that he had previously emailed Mr. Randi stating that he would not agree to serve on such a committee. The truth is, Dr. Krippner was not willing to serve on the panel, and he made this clear to Mr. Randi.
 
Lastly, despite James Randi's assurances that applying for the prize is a simple matter, this seems not to be the case. A number of the more 'general' applicants have waited multiple years to have their claim tested; one of the more recent, Carina Landin [10], went through a 3 year process just to reach the preliminary test, and after failing her test (achieving above chance results, but not to a significant level) found that her protocol had not been adhered to...and so is now waiting to be retested. According to 'Kramer', a former JREF employee who helped with applications:
 
We experience this a lot, and this most certainly leads many applicants to the conclusion that JREF is "jerking them around", forgetting that no JREF representative is involved in testing, and that tests are determined with Randi's approval, but without his direct involvement, in order to insure absolute impartiality in the testing procedure. JREF cannot guarantee the continued involvement of any third parties who volunteer their time (without any form of compensation) on behalf of The JREF Challenge."
 
All in all, it's rather easy to see why 'psychic personalities' would ignore the Million Dollar Challenge, irrespective of anyone's opinion as to whether their talents are real or fraudulent. It asks them to risk their careers on a million to one shot (assuming they are not fraudulent), putting all the power into the hands of a man they distrust - and who has been antagonistic towards them over a number of years - with no legal recourse available to them.
 
On the other hand, although parapsychologists face similar worries, it is now apparent that some are so determined to show the evidence for psi effects that they are willing to risk a failure in order to make an impression. Both Dick Bierman and Suitbert Ertel feel that there is a robust enough effect for them to at least scientifically prove to the skeptics that something interesting is going on. And perhaps others are aware of this fact...
 
You Say Paranormal, I Say Perinormal
 
At The Amaz!ng Meeting #3 (TAM3), the JREF-sponsored conference held in January 2005, Richard Dawkins made an intriguing comment [5] during an on-stage chat with James Randi:
 
About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities. I mean, what if somebody - what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?
 
Certainly, suspicious (some might say 'skeptical') minds might wonder whether the influx of positive “perinormal” results - such as from the decades of Ganzfeld telepathy research, replicated presentiment experiments, and Ertel’s new ball-drawing test - may have influenced the JREF’s decision to withdraw the Challenge. It’s interesting to note that Rule #14 of the challenge states:
 
This prize will continue to be offered until it is awarded. Upon the death of James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass into other hands, and it is intended that it continue in force.
 
Similarly, in a previous discussion regarding the Challenge, Randi had stated: “...the million dollars is not my million dollars, sir, it belongs to the foundation I represent, and it cannot be used for any purpose other than as prize money in the challenge." It would seem this is no longer the case…
 
Whatever the reasoning behind the withdrawal of the Million Dollar Challenge, it has little impact on scientific acceptance of psi effects. Even if a challenger took on the risks and won the million dollars – despite Suitbert Ertel’s best intentions - it is doubtful that skeptics would be convinced. According to CSICOP Fellow Dr Ray Hyman:
 
Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments.
 
Ultimately, Irrelevant
 
It would seem the modern skeptical movement has all bases covered. If you don’t apply, it shows you have no evidence of the paranormal. If you do apply and fail, ditto. If you put your career on the line and apply, beat initial odds of 1000 to 1, and then 1,000,000 to 1, to win the Challenge, then it still offers no proof of the paranormal.
 
Ironically, paranormal investigator Dr Stephen Braude agrees with Ray Hyman about the merits of the Challenge: “The very idea that there could be a conclusive demonstration to the scientific community of psychic functioning is fundamentally flawed, and the suggestion that a scientifically ignorant showman should decide the matter is simply hilarious.“
 
Skepticism is certainly demanded in examinations of paranormal claims (not to mention, in all facets of life). However, the JREF Challenge seems to be primarily aimed at providing the modern skeptical movement with a purely rhetorical tool for attacking the topic of the paranormal. In a recent newsletter, James Randi says as much: “The purpose of the challenge has always been to provide an arguing basis for skeptics to point that the claimants just won’t accept the confrontation.” It appears though that some parapsychology researchers are actually more willing than Randi thought...
 
It seems quite obvious that the Million Dollar challenge does not offer - and has not offered in the past - a fair scientific evaluation of paranormal claims - rather, the statistics employed are primarily based on ensuring the million dollars remains safe. Other rules further stack the deck against participants, by handing control of publicity to the JREF. Suitbert Ertel commented to me:
 
Randi and those who offer a large monetary prize for psi effect demonstrations are entitled to demand unachievable psi effects. It's their money and they must be careful not to lose it. Everybody must admit that this is reasonable economically. But careful reasoning about money and property is quite a different thing than careful scientific reasoning.
 
Dr Dean Radin was more blunt in his assessment:
 
This 'challenge' was like Evel Knievel's steam-powered motorcycle jump over the Snake River Canyon: A great stunt, accompanied by pomp and bluster, but ultimately irrelevant.
 
-------------------
 
Update: James Randi has responded to this post in his JREF newsletter dated 29/02/2008: "The Grubbies Attack [11]". While I don't consider this article an "attack" (nor consider myself "grubby"), I do thank Randi for responding. To be clear: I contacted the JREF three times while writing this article, and extended the deadline by a week, to allow for responses and clarifications from Randi (or JREF officials). I would have preferred that, rather than a rhetorical and selective newsletter 'debunking', but Randi is entitled to do what he likes.
 
Although I would like to leave the article to stand alone, rather than debating points, Randi makes some unfortunate errors in his newsletter, which I feel bound to point out here. Most importantly, in multiple passages, Randi refers to the words of "Loyd Auerbach" - these are not Auerbach's words, they are mine (apart from one short quote from Auerbach). This is unfortunate, as Randi directly addresses Loyd Auerbach in a rhetorical fashion on multiple occasions, when Auerbach did not say the words Randi attributes to him.
 
Other than that: I am not "chortling" over the end of the challenge, nor is this a "19,000 word tirade" (it doesn't even measure 4000 words, and it is simply an examination of the challenge). Surely Randi is not so sensitive about people offering skeptical analyses (this is his raison d'être, after all) of his own work, as to label them "tirades" (three times no less), when it most obviously isn't?
 
Randi defines "applied" for the challenge as it suits him. Sylvia Browne "applied", according to Randi, by responding on national TV after being "forced into it" (labeling my statement "wrong" as a consequence). Later, Professor Dick Bierman did not "apply", despite approaching Randi without being forced into it, because "his name appears in none of the application files". For the record, when I queried Randi about his in a private email, he confessed that "Browne never applied."
 
The passage about "none of the “big fish”" having applied is not a "canard", as Randi labels it - it is in fact a point in favour of the Challenge. For Randi's own edification, I am in agreement with him regarding Sylvia Browne.
 
In the only correct attribution to Loyd Auerbach, Randi says "we have never said nor even suggested [that the challenge disproves psi]. Loyd invented that, all by himself." Loyd did not claim that Randi made that statement. However, numerous self-described skeptics *have* suggested it. Auerbach had no need to "invent" it (a wonderfully descriptive phrase by Randi though, credit where due for his rhetorical skills).
 
Randi says "the applicant invests nothing, has nothing to lose, and should be able to beat the odds in the same way that any person could ." This is patently untrue, as the article shows.
 
Randi: "Again, nonsense. We have NEVER had an applicant fail to come to agreement with us when terms were negotiated, and every one of those applicants simply failed and did not re-apply." I stand corrected.
 
Randi: "What Auerbach purposely fails to understand – in order to have an argument – is that a pole-vaulter should be able to pole-vault, a cook should be able to cook, and a psychic should be able to do what he/she claims, to better than 1/100 odds."
 
Nonsense, Randi has no such knowledge that a psychic should do better than his arbitrary 1/100 odds - it is his personal opinion. Would it be snarky of me to point out that in earlier paragraphs Randi claimed to have an "abysmal ignorance of statistics"?
 
Randi says: "And, I have to wonder why Dr. Bierman did not press me to pursue the matter, since he reports that it seems to have simply vanished. We’ve had many of such disappearances, in which apparently interested persons, scientists among them such as Dr. Wayne E. Carr – also a PhD, so we know he’s a real scientist – who negotiated with us literally for years before backing out. "
 
Randi turns this around rather deftly with some rhetorical sleight-of-hand. According to Dr Bierman, the ball was in Randi's court when the application "disappeared"; Bierman did not "back out". Randi need not have "wondered" why Bierman did not follow up - Bierman says himself in the article. Further, Randi says his correspondence with Bierman terminated in 1983...I'm not sure of this date, as Bierman's email correspondence about presentiment was in 1998.
 
[The mention of Victor Zammit's own attack mid-response is nothing to do with my article.]
 
However, I am glad to see that my article has prompted Randi to lower the odds (to 1 in 100 for the preliminary, and 1 in 100,000 for the main challenge). This may make the Challenge a more attractive proposition for parapsychology researchers. It certainly remedies (to a degree) one of the main problems with the challenge - that the odds are so long. One in one hundred thousand is still no easy task however.
 
--------------
Source URL (retrieved on 26 Mar 2010 - 1:26am): http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
 
Links:
[1] http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31
[2] http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/112/81
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
[5] http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
[6] http://www.parapsych.org/members/d_bierman.html
[7] http://deanradin.com
[8] http://books.google.com/books?id=YxDddIkpmnYC&amp;pg=PA90&amp;lpg=PA90&amp;dq=ertel ball drawing test&amp;source=web&amp;ots=9nR9C7r-ok&amp;sig=-nwbFvKPrs2OZ8nhTmdqzeJut84
[9] http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32
[10] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=32779
[11] http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/169/1/#i9
 

LOL...ping pong BB!

What the cheeseburger are you talking about?
 I am not trying to profit off of the gullibility of others. If I was profiting somehow by spewing ridiculous, false, misleading claims, then you would be correct.
 Here, you are drawing faulty conclusions and making assumptions. If you want to believe, faith requires no supporting evidence. Just do it. I'm sure plenty of Kaissan's believe all sorts of things. They don't post them on the BB.
 
If you feel it necessary to move beyond simple faith and try to use the bible, science, crackpots and charlatans to make your simple faith look like fact, then a) you really don't have faith and b) you are opening up a window for your claims to be refuted. Which I, and others, have done.
 
 I actually read the article, which I am absolutely sure you did not. The challenge still stands and is being revised. Quoting your article:
 So what exactly am I misrepresenting? These geniuses cannot win the money because their "science" is garbage so they attack JREF. Nothing news worthy there.
Parapsychological research? Seriously? I'm absolutely terrified that the respected individuals in the parapsychological research field will now label me as an outcast in the psuedoscientific community. I have to go now, my spidey-sense is tingling...
 
--SoCo

Since it's apparent that the divide of 'world-views' among us, is Not about to be bridged, anytime soon, {if forever}; I've finished debating the 'why-and-wherefores' of the preceding with you.
 
And since the following, is unrelated to a continued debate, back-and-forth; Does this apply to you 'SC'?!; Only God/'JC' and perhaps,{but not necessarily}, You know!? Ie. John 8:44, {for a better.. more modern language, background 'appreciation'; Read the "New International Version," John 8:31-to end of chapter 8}.
 
Of course 'SC,' you have the option to Never reference the above. And if that turns out to be the case; I suspect that it was 'meant to be.' As in; Not 'throwing {God's} pearls, before swine'!
 
Ps. Hopefully {SC}; You Won't allow your lack of respect for my views, {or the imperfect way I present them}; In coming between yourself, and the Message of Jesus Christ!

This is all a bunch of mumbojumbo ridiculis baloney. Everybody knows that jesus was born from the virgin mary ,son of god and he died for our sins so we could go to heaven and live happily ever after and if you don't believe that then you will go to hell and burn for eternity. Noahs ark, adam and eve .Just read the bible and it all becomes clear and you don't have to think about quantum math or logic or anything.
God Bless you.
 
D

Doorman, you been out in the sun too much. You need to live somewhere cooler.

Would 'fate' {if you will}, allow the most influential person in history, {we even date our calenders; If inaccurately, by His birth}; To also have been the greatest charlatan, and-or 'madman,' that ever lived?
-- Or might, more logically; 'Perhaps' {as in; For the sake of argument}; He was, who He claimed to be!? {rhetorical}

 I don't post here to change your mind. Brick walls have more sense and compassion than you do. I play the villian to your legions of fans who follow you on Kaissa and hang on every copy pasted word.
 
 This is the passage that says I am the child of the devil. When the same bible speaks about rape, slavery and child sacrifice approved by god, how bad could this devil really be?
 
--SoCo

My guess? ..About a thousand times 'worse' {minimum}. But, Hey!; What do I know?!.. Or You?.. Who recently, in giving yourself some 'wiggle-room' Re. the remote possibility {in your own mind}; That 'random-number-generators' Could be influenced by human thought; Found fault with the premise. Because it did Not take into account, what amounted to, the conciousness variables of 'ants'! --
 
Ps. Wouldn't you know it; The best, and scariest pic of "Satan" on the 'Web' is copyrighted, and unavailable.-- - As a substitute 'backup'; I'd normally leave you with "Pascal's {famous} Wager," to mull over; But given where you're 'coming from' {SC}; I have little doubt, that you'll {at least initially}; Be jumping into those 'flames' {one day}, with Gusto!
 
Pps. Re. your foremost mentioned 'God quandary'; What makes you think, that God/JC will answer your specific question, in a methodology way; Different, than "Job"?!
- Where He, in effect; Reminds us how relatively stupid we All are!; Esp. when it comes to any human, having the 'chutzpa' to 'cross-examine' as it were; The 'All-Knowing-One'; Prior, to any 'faith' commitment, on your part! .. Which as you Should know; Is Not a 'part-and-parcel' of 'Faith'! {"Abraham," with "Isaac" on-the-altar; Is another prime, typology/example, of what I'm referring to!}.

..yet it will be comforting to know , that when whitelightning has bolted, his genes will vanish with him and evolution will chalk up another win.

Ever since 'pre-history'; We All have our detractors; Eh? --
 
Ecclesiastes 1:9 {New International Version}
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.

The Devil and God only exist in one's mind. How much faith one puts in these fantasies depends on how screwed up you are. Personally , I have none. Physics and evolution have blown religion out of the water.

 
And I suspect that if you were fully honest with yourself pennine; Esp. in examining ones own subconscious motivations; The reason you think that way; Is because 'physics and evolution' are both morally 'neutral' subjects. That do Not require any accountibility {as in, self discipline}, on your part!
1 Corinthians 6:19 {New International Version}
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own ...
 
{For the record; In 'mainstream' Christian doctrine; God's "Holy Spirit" indwells us; Immediately AFTER we get 'Saved' {which refers to a personal commitment of the 'heart'; As in, one's willful decision; And a Major One, at that!}.

 
WRONG!! GammaBurst ,You hypocritical Freak!
It takes quite a bit of moral accountability to realize that your own self worth is ZERO compared to the vastness of the cosmo's. Your value to the Universe is worth less then a butterflys fart. Just realize that and then go about your Day and be respectful and kind to those who would judge and condem you as you do . THAT! takes self dicipline.
 
I do not have that kind of self Dicipline . F@CKY@u @ssh@le!
 
D