Hello, I came across Tom's experiments and then found out he's having them performed at the university I attended, so that peaked my interest. So I looked over the experiments shown here: https://cusac.eu/experiments/
And it seems to me that if the assumptions are correct, there would be some big implications and real-world applications here. For example, if the assumptions in experiment 4, and experiment 2B are correct (that you can predict a random number before it's chosen, and that the result can determine the injection input data before it's injected), then you should be able to do things like predict the winning lottery numbers before they are chosen.

So here is a way I thought of to scale up experiments 2B and 4, where if those assumptions are correct, it seems to me the same logic should allow the following to take place, and predict the lottery results.


Based on https://cusac.eu/experiment-2b/:

Scaled up experiment to generate yet-to-be-chosen winning lottery numbers:
1. After a particle is fired, the result on the screen (diffraction pattern or particle pattern) is observed only by person A. R1 is inactive at this point, and the signal is suspended between D1/D2 and R1, and if R1 were to activate, it would store the result.
2. This process is repeated among additional separate apparatuses, where the binary results of diffraction pattern or particle pattern (0 or 1) is concatenated and converted to decimal value (representing lottery numbers). Person A buys a lottery ticket with these numbers.
3. A period of time later (it shouldn't matter how long), person B chooses any number they wish (the winning lottery numbers in this case), converts them to binary values (0 or 1) and injects these values at the w-w injection point, after the signal passes D1/D2 but before reaching R1, and R1 then stores the result; this is performed among each apparatus in the same order the particles were fired.

The prediction is the number that person B injected will match the result person A previously observed on the screen (0 for diffraction pattern, 1 for particle pattern). Therefore person A can predict what the future lottery numbers will be, since those are the numbers person B will have to inject in order to result in the pattern observed by the particle. Otherwise, it would be possible to know the "w-w data" the particle traveled if the result was a diffraction pattern for that particle - which contradicts particle-wave complementarity. So you may be wondering, what if person B chose to not enter the winning lottery numbers in order to try and contradict the initial output pattern? Well that would mean the results wouldn't have been the winning lottery numbers to begin with, since they have to match what person B injected. So there is no possibility of "tricking" the system. That's why it's necessary for the knowledge of the results to not influence person B's injection. That also answers this question by Tom in experiment 2B:
In other words, the output (whether a person knowing the results, or a machine having recorded the results) can't do anything that would influence the injection (input). A different entity with no knowledge of the output results would need to make the injection. Otherwise, if the injector had knowledge of the output, they would have knowledge of the w-w data which would mean the result would have been a particle pattern to begin with, in that case. This is the same concept as in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative method based on https://cusac.eu/experiment-4/:

1. After the particle is fired, the result on the screen (diffraction pattern or particle pattern) is observed only by person A. R1 and R2 are USB flash drives, they are turned on but their data is not analyzed.
2. Person B chooses whether to destroy the R1 and R2 USB flash drives (corresponding to a 0 or 1).

This method can be scaled up in the same way the first method was scaled up (using multiple machines to convert binary "0 or 1" to decimal numbers).

The predicted result is that if person B chose to destroy R1 and R2, this would correspond to a diffraction pattern of the particle that person A previously observed. Therefore person A can predict what person B's decision will be, since they will always correspond with one another.



This logic seems sound to me if Tom's initial assumptions are correct, and seems to be supported by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. From those assumptions, it shouldn't matter whether a random number is injected, or a predetermined number is injected, as long as the injector doesn't know the output result, since that would influence the injector's decision.
Would it make a difference whether a conscious entity or a machine knows which numbers are being injected? I don't think so, as long as they aren't influenced by, or have knowledge of the result screen data. Whether a robot or a human injects the numbers, it shouldn't make a difference if the numbers are random or are any numbers that the injector chooses as long as the result screen data isn't known to the injector at this point. I believe both cases should work, if the input determines the output and the output determines the input (shown in delayed choice quantum eraser), since they cannot contradict each other in order to preserve particle-wave complementarity.

What do you guys think?

The system won't let you pick Lottery numbers. Doing that reinforces ego and that is asking the LCS to work against itself. I remember when I was living in CA I had a lottery ticket with all the numbers one number off. You will find a lot of stories like that.

Not exactly the same as picking lotto numbers but remote viewers have been able to predict the stock market and make money on it. Here’s some relatively recent research.

Check out Russell Targ and Ingo Swann also(mentioned in the article).

http://psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/Smith14.pdf

Here’s a video on how to remote view lotto numbers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ObeI82f5OmI

I don’t know if there has been any academic research on this specifically but I don’t have much doubt that there are those that are capable of doing it.

I suspect that the LCS didn't interfere because this was being done as an experiment, and so might open some people's mind. But for someone to do this on a regular basis is unlikely.

Tom has talked about his many times:

TMI November 2017 Day 3 - 31:1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV-NTJC ... &t=0h31m1s

Yes, it is typically easier to focus intent into starting a business or learning a useful skill and get a decent job if the goal is just to make money.

It is interesting that so few people know about such abilities and even when they do they write it off as silly woo woo. I think the people who run the banks, lottery, governments and stock markets have a vested interest in keeping this knowledge socially unacceptable so that people don’t get the nudge. They remain tools of the system and the system administration.

What would happen to the control system if this kind of information gets out and enough people realize their full potential? Likely destruction of the system and those who depend on it I think.

Tom is quite the rebel, supporting the spreading and advancement of this kind of knowledge. He is trying to help open minds. Tom is a dangerous person to many with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Anonymous internet quote, "The world is run by those that can get others to operate within the myths they generate".

Hopefully Tom Campbell and others can bring in enough information to shake that up a bit.

_________________
“It’s better to light a candle than to curse the dark” K’naan (In the Beginning)

I used that as an example to show how big of an impact this could have, but in reality you'd be able to predict just about anything using this method. For example if you want to know who will win the 2020 election, you could correspond candidate 1 to a diffraction pattern on the result screen, and candidate 2 to a particle pattern. And the w-w data is stored but not looked at, and then when the day of the election comes, somebody with no knowledge of the result screen destroys or analyzes the w-w data corresponding to which candidate won. So if candidate 1 won, the person would destroy the w-w data and the initial result screen would have to (even retroactively) match the election winner.
I don't know anything about remote viewing, but this method would take no skill or training or special abilities to utilize, you'd only need the necessary equipment (if it works, that is).

I just came across this article (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6130 ... sion=true ) that seems to perfectly describe this very scenario, which they were able to experimentally prove:

Linda,

so this was identical to the story that Tom shared from the video, with all your "digits" being off one number ?

Yes, this happened to me in the mid 1970s long before I'd ever heard of MBT.

Okay , this makes more sense to me now, .. and so my first thoughts were.., this did not sound at all like our more recent MBT- Linda, that you would be buying Lottery tickets.. But a younger Linda well before MBT ?.. okay,.. that I could see i think..

Seems to fit well the Digital, repetitive, lesson oriented, sub -routine, parsimony , ..system...

Buffering...............Working.................compiling.............processing.............:)

Linda,

the California state lottery didnt start until 1985..

I meant the late in the 80s. I I moved there in 1987 and left in 1993.

So what do people think?

Since TBC likely doesn't want us making money by predicting the future (ego, higher entropy), are we going to see:

- all 2 bars in the envelopes?
- all diffraction patterns?
- Or a random mix of both?

My first instinct is all 2 bars, but since that's more computationally expensive, and since our intent is most likely high entropy, I feel like TBC will throw us for a loop and give us diffraction patterns. Maybe if our intent is to predict something without money involved, then maybe 2 bars lol.

I feel like there's a hybrid experiment (meaningless random number generator + something more meaningful) that puts TBC in between a rock and a hard place, forcing statistically significant results, and therefore the prediction of something more meaningful than a random number between 1 and 2.

And of course, the question I'm sure everyone's wondering: can you use your intent to put your mind on what the random number generator will end up with (and the initial screen of course)?

Is there a less certain experiment we can imagine that makes it a tool for divination (magic 8-ball)?

Moving away from high entropy intentions and getting back to science, can the answers to any of these questions prove that the simulation favors low entropy evolution? E.g. "Better not tell you now" responses. For example if we can design an experiment that makes it computationally cheaper to tell us the future (while rules for objective continuity are achieved), yet the experiment gives us nothing statistically significant (when it otherwise would), then we have proved TBC is aware of our intent and doesn't favor high entropy intent. I'm not sure what this experiment looks like at this moment, but I think we're about to open up a pandoras box of tons more experiments/questions.

Assuming experiment 4 with the envelopes works, I think that random number generator has many more possibilities for what it can be (on the spectrum between lottery predictor and random number generator). Based on his notes in the slides, Tom is obviously more excited about the area of research that experiment 3 will open up, regarding the gray area between subjective vs objective observation/recording. Rather than waiting, I wonder if there's a way to subjectively replicate these experiments with less/no equipment, basically in our minds with minimal/no NPMR experience. Being dependent on all this equipment doesn't sound like something that will be required in the long run once the rule set is well understood.