general supernatural exploration - part 1

[Mr G]

J, I was wondering about that... At first I thought you meant it was an existential crisis for X, that he might want to reconsider his position on the supernatural. But is this existential crisis actually about you, or the forum? Are you saying he might be making it up?

That is probably the most prudent way to think about it, but do you have any reason to doubt him? We're not basing any important decisions off this, just chatting about weird stuff. It makes no real difference whether what he or I says is true, and for that reason I feel it probably is true. That's what makes this forum stuff interesting to me, I don't have to worry about losing face or looking cool, I'm just a letter. Hopefully. And if you were wondering if we're colluding, I Elvis J. Presley Jr categorically state that we're not. Or are we? (No, but come on, what could we possibly gain from that?)

X, I really don't care and cannot believe that you would make something up just to annoy strangers on the internet. I'm not even really bothered about encryption and secrecy and such, this is a friendly conversation and whatever you say is good enough for me. I promise I won't jump off a bridge just because you said it's safe, and I expect the same good sense from you and every other member here.

I hope we continue this discussion as long as more than one person wants to. I still enjoy it because it's the only outlet I have for this kind of strangeness. (Cue world's tiniest violin playing just for me)

Hope Miss X feels better soon, and good weekend to all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBEXSiFzOfU

[Mr X]

hello g and j,

Very good but isn't that the wrong way round?

that is one way of looking at it. is it even and problem, at all. there is no rule or condition that says mr x is infallible, always belief everything mr x says, never question mr x. it is completely appropriate to question, doubt or not belief me.

if i said "i will accurately report the numbers, i will not modify the numbers, you can trust me on this",  that seems enough. the statement is true. if someone else said that to me, i doubt i would belief them. not due any terrible judgments of people, i just would casually not initiate trust.

perhaps the problem is you looking at something as being borderline incredible. when even though it happened, it is not borderline incredible to those involved. just some numbers being passed around in and casual game. belief in the supernatural seems the be the thing. it makes sense that i can say there is no need for you to belief in me as it is unnecessary, as that is true, yet i feel the need to belief in you or others for reasons of trust. what makes sense no longer makes sense.

there is nothing to gain from lying to and tiny assortment of anonymous letters, i am not selling anything and i dont require anyones attention to survive. i would like to say there is nothing to gain and nothing to lose as and random letter. however there is something to gain or something to lose. if i have to, i can and will explore the supernatural solo. i would prefer not to. i would prefer not to explore alone. some synchronous letters online seems better than solo. i will continue to explore with you mr g and any other member of forum4.

i also noticed i mistuped. the penny dreadful tupe was meant to be trailer #2, i was quite surprised i actually made and tupe mistake.

x

ps. biotics worked as expect. also novel she uses the holding pattern sometimes to pass time. also novel that the holding pattern, while being not supernatural and rather benign, has and history of producing strange and strong coincidences, as mentioned in the story i didnt mention in the serious sync thread. fun times.

[tally-ho!]

  G: We're not basing any important decisions off this, just chatting about weird stuff.

yes, but remember what DJ said? something about the absence of more or less "important" decisions, and being ready to die for any of them?

this is the very basic core of SuperNaturalBelief imo.

weather decisions are death or life issues or just entertainment.
told someone yesterday that i avoid reality checks in orer to avoid confusion between dream and waking. (sometimes i'm very sure in dreams i'm awake - never occurred to me i could be dreaming while awake. or?_) anyway -
what did i want to say?
am i awake?
(yes)

[ju4o]

I would like to invite you all to imagine an alternative version of this thread, as follows:

X: "I have found a random number generator which genarates truly random numbers based on atmospheric noise.  www.random.org.  I've randomly generated one number, between 1 and 500.  Anyone is welcome to guess it."

G "I guess 372."

X "Correct."

What would you think?

[Mr G]

It does sound more impressive (or more damning if you prefer) when you put it like that.

Perhaps it would be best for you to assume that we colluded, it wouldn't be unreasonable. I'll continue to say that we didn't, but that shouldn't dissuade you.

I offer an alternative explanation: From my perspective, it appears as if more low probability events happen to me when I participate in this forum. I wonder if it is simply because we are discussing the supernatural, unwittingly triggering some hidden springs in a more fundamental layer of reality.

But it is far more likely that me and X concocted a cunning scheme to irritate people who don't want to talk to us. Again, I say we didn't, but let's assume we did. Where would you like to go from here?

[ju4o]

Thanks G.  I would be interested in anyone else's thoughts too.

Meanwhile, just to clarify, that number 500 was not simply plucked out of thin air.  It was based on a somewhat back-of-the-envelope analysis of round 1 along the same lines as I did for round 2.

Given 6 random numbers (2,30,30,31,37,45) and 7 guesses (2,12,12,40,37,45,14) what is the probability that 3 of the guesses would match?  The answer is (I think) 3.7 percent i.e. about 1 chance in 27.

So if round 1 achieved an unlikeliness of 1 in 27, and round 2 achieved an unlikeliness of 1 in 23, then the combination of rounds 1 and 2 achieved an unlikeliness of 1 in 621 (27 multiplied by 23) which I rounded down to 500.

[tally-ho!]

hmmm... ju4o - your description seems the way things should be. to me, at least.

yes, i did think a number and never posted it - what round was it? anyway right  when x said than dreaming is as legitimate way to pick a umber as any - closed my eyes' saw "the tunnel" and expected to see a number - instead i heared it (said?) 17.
then someone wrote somewhere no no no' the number is incorrect, so i tried again and it (?) said 15.
- 15?
_between 15 and 17 (meaning 15\16\17?
but 17 feels more serious.)

may be i'm naeve- sweat sumer child as x once put it - but why can't things go just as Ju4o described? if you can guess, you can guess!

[ju4o]

Hi Z that is interesting.  Can I ask a follow up question: what if instead of 500 I had said a million?  That is, if you would imagine an alternative version of this thread, as follows,

X: "I have found a random number generator which genarates truly random numbers based on atmospheric noise.  www.random.org.  I've randomly generated a number, between one and a million.  Anyone is welcome to guess it."

G "I guess three hundred and seventy two thousand six hundred and five."

X "Correct."

What would you think?

[Mr X]

hello,

no time today but interesting reading. just posting to say round 2 is active.

3 numbers. one image, for and clue - the image is simple, it is not something like and specific painting or and pop culture thing.

mr x.

[ju4o]

That brings up some fascinating questions which are the subject of active research.

For example the notion of "zero-knowledge proof" (bold added)

In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that a given statement is true, without conveying any information apart from the fact that the statement is indeed true.

If proving the statement requires knowledge of some secret information on the part of the prover, the definition implies that the verifier will not be able to prove the statement in turn to anyone else, since the verifier does not possess the secret information. Notice that the statement being proved must include the assertion that the prover has such knowledge (otherwise, the statement would not be proved in zero-knowledge, since at the end of the protocol the verifier would gain the additional information that the prover has knowledge of the required secret information). If the statement consists only of the fact that the prover possesses the secret information, it is a special case known as zero-knowledge proof of knowledge, and it nicely illustrates the essence of the notion of zero-knowledge proofs: proving that one has knowledge of certain information is trivial if one is allowed to simply reveal that information; the challenge is proving that one has such knowledge without revealing the secret information or anything else.

For zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge, the protocol must necessarily require interactive input from the verifier, usually in the form of a challenge or challenges such that the responses from the prover will convince the verifier if and only if the statement is true (i.e., if the prover does have the claimed knowledge). This is clearly the case, since otherwise the verifier could record the execution of the protocol and replay it to someone else: if this were accepted by the new party as proof that the replaying party knows the secret information, then the new party's acceptance is either justified – the replayer does know the secret information – which means that the protocol leaks knowledge and is not zero-knowledge, or it is spurious – i.e. leads to a party accepting someone's proof of knowledge who does not actually possess it.

The challenge for X, at this point, is "proving that one has knowledge of certain information is trivial if one is allowed to simply reveal that information; the challenge is proving that one has such knowledge without revealing the secret information or anything else".

[ju4o]

For example, suppose X tries password-protecting the numbers.  He could post them in password-protected form, and later on reveal the password.

The problem would be, how to convince us that the password which he later reveals is the true password which unlocks the original numbers.

He could have several specially prepared passwords up his sleeve.

If he wants to persuade us that the numbers were 1,2,3 (for example) he would reveal password A, which unlocks the original password-protected file to produce 1,2,3.

If on the other hand he wants to persuade us that the numbers were 4,5,6, then he could reveal password B, which unlocks the same original password-protected file to produce 4,5,6.

[Mr X]

hello,

i guess i can see what you are saying. thanks for input on that. how can we be sure the password is not manipulated. there is also magicians tricks, mentalism and basic suggestion as possible means of manipulating the numbers.

round 2 has no pass or encrypt, just noted in and text file like round one. i had no distribution method nor did anyone seem to care. g had no encrypt need. the round is broken but still there.

round 3 needs to be rock solid. input from all. breaking systems is and good exercise.

in the alternate versions i wouldnt belief, but in the point of borderline incredible i get it. i would think something has happened. something weird. from my view the numbers were random and all i did was know them, so g must be the the source of the something. i appreciate your analysis of the numbers.

it appears as if more low probability events happen to me when I participate in this forum. I wonder if it is simply because we are discussing the supernatural, unwittingly triggering some hidden springs in a more fundamental layer of reality.

if, from the moment you wake to the moment you sleep, you were to flood your mind with information, information would start linking together. not due to any meaning, it just would. you would notice this is similar to that, one thing is like another, and image would form. it is logical that the more information you consume, the more possible links. maybe syncs are just that we are noticing the information interact with other information.

as it turns out, i have been having and existential crisis, and good one but i have it contained. there is and switch in the off position. if i could turn it to the on position, it would provide default belief in the supernatural. that switch is right next to the core of and wasteland of switches set to off. i am sure it is possible to change ones view.

x

[Mr G]

J4, tell me if this satisfies the conditions.

There are approx. 1 million English words. The experiment is to see if you can guess a randomly selected word from a randomly selected book.

To encode the answer, I type the ISBN number of the book in a text editor or word processor, e.g.

9780140289206 (13 digits)

I complete the code by adding the page number (3 digits), line number (2 digits) and word number (2 digits).

Input mask: BBBBBBBBBBBBBPPPLLWW (20 digits)

Example: 97801402892060961001

(ISBN for Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, page 096, line 10, word 01)

Next, I take the word ("football"), and convert it to binary with an online converter, e.g. http://www.unit-conversion.info/texttools/convert-text-to-binary/

Result: 01100110 01101111 01101111 01110100 01100010 01100001 01101100 01101100

I paste it into the text editor mentioned, then remove all the spaces:

0110011001101111011011110111010001100010011000010110110001101100

Next, I connect the two numbers by adding "base 10" behind the book code, "base 2" behind the binary word code and "*" between them:

97801402892060961001 base 10 * 0110011001101111011011110111010001100010011000010110110001101100 base 2

I copy and paste the combination to Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/

Wolfram Alpha multiplies the numbers and returns:

721895711186429677656686373548203609676

Next, I publish the number in our guessing game. If a person guesses the word correctly, it is easy to run the process in reverse. Simply divide the given number by the binary of the guessed word. If it is the correct word, the following will happen:

1. The result will be a 20 digit number
2. It will follow the pattern BBBBBBBBBBBBBPPPLLWW
3. If you paste the first 13 digits into google, it will show you a book
4. If you can get the book, or search it online, you will see the word on page PPP, in line LL, word number WW.

If the person has guessed the word incorrectly, the probability of finding that wrong word in a wrong book at that wrong place would surely be even smaller than guessing 1 out of a million words.

It may be hard to find that specific book, but at least it would be verifiable. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to write a script to automate the process, but I wouldn't know where to start.

Thoughts?

Edit: Hi X, agree with everything you said. Much info = many syncs

[ju4o]

ISBNs can contain the letter X as well as the digits 0...9 but you can avoid this problem by simply not choosing a book with an X in its ISBN.  Your scheme is interesting and I suggest you give it a try.  As X is giving his rounds numbers you could give your rounds letters.  Round A.

[tally-ho!]

hello
x-congratulations for overcoming your existential crisis, whatever that was. so Resistance was not futile?

Ju4o: The challenge for X, at this point, is "proving that one has knowledge of certain information is trivial if one is allowed to simply reveal that information; the challenge is proving that one has such knowledge without revealing the secret information or anything else".

Hi Z that is interesting.  Can I ask a follow up question: what if instead of 500 I had said a million?  That is, if you would imagine an alternative version of this thread, as follows,

X: "I have found a random number generator which genarates truly random numbers based on atmospheric noise.  www.random.org.  I've randomly generated a number, between one and a million.  Anyone is welcome to guess it."

G "I guess three hundred and seventy two thousand six hundred and five."

X "Correct."

What would you think?

J ang G (and X) - are you playing "turkish poker?"

it's a game introduced in a Feuilleton by Efraim Kishon:
player 1 names a number - player 2 names a number - the one whose number is higher, wins.

numbers got higher, and higher, and higher - and Ephraim never won. he couldn't understand why... (because he was always second to announce his number, that's why.)
he is thinking a very good number, say - "million!"
"million and three!" says Arvinka.
"two millions and three!"
""two millions and three hundred and five!"
"three millions!"
three million and twelve!"
well - of course it's possible to "guess" whatever number, or word, or image, or whatever someone say\thinks\writes - telepathy, if such a thing exist, is just another way of reading\hearing\seeing, no?

imagine i say: "hundred!" and you hear me. and repeat correctly.

next i say "tow millions and thirty five!" and you hear me
next i say "Mona Lisa!" and - wow! you repeat correctly
next i say "a vortex!"
-and so on.

what's the big deal?
i'll tel you what:

if you want to WIN...
then you can't afford to be the first to reveal your number\image\intent\whatever.
Life is a Turkish Poker, and all are actors.

if you want to win, you have to encrypt what you know.
since the tamahtuphah is closed, this retarded game is enabled.

G:There are approx. 1 million English words. The experiment is to see if you can guess a randomly selected word from a randomly selected book.

To encode the answer, I type the ISBN number of the book in a text editor or word processor, e.g.

9780140289206 (13 digits)

I complete the code by adding the page number (3 digits), line number (2 digits) and word number (2 digits).

Input mask: BBBBBBBBBBBBBPPPLLWW (20 digits)

Example: 97801402892060961001

(ISBN for Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, page 096, line 10, word 01)

Next, I take the word ("football"), and convert it to binary with an online converter, e.g. http://www.unit-conversion.info/texttools/convert-text-to-binary/

Result: 01100110 01101111 01101111 01110100 01100010 01100001 01101100 01101100

I paste it into the text editor mentioned, then remove all the spaces:

0110011001101111011011110111010001100010011000010110110001101100

Next, I connect the two numbers by adding "base 10" behind the book code, "base 2" behind the binary word code and "*" between them:

Quote
97801402892060961001 base 10 * 0110011001101111011011110111010001100010011000010110110001101100 base 2

I copy and paste the combination to Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/

Wolfram Alpha multiplies the numbers and returns:

Quote
721895711186429677656686373548203609676

Next, I publish the number in our guessing game. If a person guesses the word correctly, it is easy to run the process in reverse. Simply divide the given number by the binary of the guessed word. If it is the correct word, the following will happen:

1. The result will be a 20 digit number
2. It will follow the pattern BBBBBBBBBBBBBPPPLLWW
3. If you paste the first 13 digits into google, it will show you a book
4. If you can get the book, or search it online, you will see the word on page PPP, in line LL, word number WW.

If the person has guessed the word incorrectly, the probability of finding that wrong word in a wrong book at that wrong place would surely be even smaller than guessing 1 out of a million words.

It may be hard to find that specific book, but at least it would be verifiable. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to write a script to automate the process, but I wouldn't know where to start.

i'm too advanced to understand i guess...
but go ahead, kiddos.