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 distribution)?

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 intention*?

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).

Fotini Pallikari-Viras
Physics Departmenti
Athens University

RetroPsychoKinesis Project Home