Printable View
You're going to need bulk data.
If you had a lucid dream every night and kept this up for months you wouldn't have enough data to confirm anything. Especially if you only have "ethereal projections" on occasion.
My suggestion is you use many dice, as many as you can remember the colors of anyway. This way if you actually do have an "ethereal projection" you should get all the dice correct simultaneously.
This goes back to the potential pitfalls of assuming too much about the thing you are studying, and how setting one's bench mark too high as a result can possibly lead to one overlooking relevant (but less dramatic) data.
I am not a mathematician, but I would think 30-50 trials ought to be pretty decent. I guess one way to find out how many trials I will need is to roll a die until I am close to an even distribution of results, then repeat rolling the die X amount of times to ensure the even distribution is constant at that number of rolls, and then aim for that number of trials in my experiment.
What do you think?
Hey. I didn't read through this thread as thoroughly as I could, so I apologize if following is redundant.
I am neither a mathematician or statistician, but I know that you don't need a high number of trials to know if you are getting significant results. Why don't you keep it simple, and start with about 10 trials. On a six sided die if you were to get just 6 colors correct in a row you're looking at ridiculous odds, 1 in 46656.
Just stay as true as you can to a strict protocol, which I know is tricky considering the nature of such tests. But we are all capable of confirmation bias, and minimizing its potential is key. Also, based on some of the challenges you've faced you could certainly simplify the experiments. First, why not eliminate the possibility of confusing multiple colors on a single die (during the OBE) by simply ensuring that only one single color of one single object is the target. For example, you could have 6 (or whatever #) distinctly colored marbles in a bag. For each trial blindly grab one and drop it into your target container, and that's it. For each subsequent trial repeat with all 6 marbles.
You mentioned it's difficult enough to accurately read a 2 digit number in that state, let alone a winning lottery number; your desire to keep the target veridical data in line with the nature of the experience is dead on.
Another poster mentioned using random pictures as targets. In some of my own experiments I was using this site.
http://www.randomword.net/
It generates a random word and accompanying picture, though I can't vouch for the statistics. My wife would print out the page with the picture and word and put that in an envelop, and that would be my target.
I hope you keep up with the research. It's exciting no matter which way the results go.
Yeah... in a row.
If it's a true "ethereal projection" you should be getting them all right at once. If its just a dream then you shouldn't.
The only thing you've succeeded in proving is that you don't have them every time (if at all) and you have no way of discerning if you actually had one or it was just blind luck. 40-50 tests is far too much error if your not having 100% accuracy.
If "ethereal projection" are erratic then you'll never have comprehensive data. You may need thousands of tests to see the slight lean. But if you put 10 dice in the jar and get them all right in one night you've practically proven your findings. Or if you don't in 20 or so tests you've disproven them.
What are you basing this assumption off of exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemsLock
The way I would discern luck from "not luck" is by comparing the results of my experiment with the theoretical probability of what ought to happen by chance alone. If my results fall within what would be expected by chance alone, then that means there is most likely nothing special about EPs. If my results fall outside of what would be expected by chance alone, then that would indicate that there may be “something else” going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemsLock
Ok, do you actually have any math to back that up or were you just thinking out loud?Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemsLock
Even at the low end of that scale, 40 trials at 100% accuracy should only happen about 1 time in every 1,428,571,428,571,428,571,428,571,428 trials...which needless to say is far beyond what needs to be accomplished in order to have a significant finding.
Spoiler for The math to back it up:
If you don't have correct math to back yourself up, what you are saying completely worthless. And no matter what your opinion may be on the subject, you will still need some way to objectively quantify the data (i.e. by calculating out the probabilities) and you have made it clear to me that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to that area of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemsLock
And just so that you are aware, in statistics rolling 10 dice at once is equivalent to rolling 1 die 10 separate times, in either case it is still just 10 independent variables.
Ok, this is just a lesson in logic: If 20 trials are not enough to "prove" anything, then it would follow that 20 trials are therefore not enough to "disprove" anything either. Honestly, I am starting to have second thoughts about the value of your opinion when it comes to the objectivity of this experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by SystemsLock
I think you misunderstood me.
Nothing. I'm only assuming that in an ethereal projection you have a 100% accuracy rate. You're right that could be totally wrong.Quote:
What are you basing this assumption off of exactly?
I said if your not having 100% accuracy...Quote:
Ok, do you actually have any math to back that up or were you just thinking out loud?
Even at the low end of that scale, 40 trials at 100% accuracy should only happen about 1 time in every 1,428,571,428,571,428,571,428,571,428 trials...which needless to say is far beyond what needs to be accomplished in order to have a significant finding.
I'm assuming they don't happen every night, or even close to it. Then again I could be totally wrong.
I meant 20 tests with 10 dice.Quote:
Ok, this is just a lesson in logic: If 20 trials are not enough to "prove" anything, then it would follow that 20 trials are therefore not enough to "disprove" anything either
Why are you arguing all this? I wasn't attacking any of the data! I only said you would have faster and better results if you used more dice. That's all!
Sorry I haven't responded in a while. The best way to explain why is to summarize what has happened recently:
- father diagnosed with terminal cancer
- cat died
- wife got into a car accident (but is ok)
- was on a new training schedule for a week with virtually the opposite days off and shift hours compared to what I normally have.
@ Systemslock
I apologize if I misunderstood you. Nevertheless, 200 dice trials (whether its 20 x 10 or otherwise) is not necessary to get significant findings. I think 25 trials ought to be enough, and here is why. For example, if we consider the odds of getting at least 10 trials out of 25 correct (a minimum of a 40% success rate), the odds of doing this by chance alone is less than half a percent (~.474%). However, if I were to do 200 trials, the odds of getting at least 40% success is about .00000000000003%.
As you can see, though a 40% success rate with 200 trials is significantly better than with 25 trials, having a ~99.5% chance that your results were not by coincidence alone is not too shabby, and 25 trials is doable. If you are interested in how I came up with these figures, the math is somewhat complicated but this will do it for you by plugging in the raw data.
I will resume the experiment this weekend, don't forget about me.
Oh ethen...I am so very sorry to hear about your father. And your cat. And your wife. :( Glad she's ok though. Must be a really rough time for you. Hang in there mate.
You most certainly will not be forgotten my friend.
thank you :)
Woke up at 4 am this morning, stayed up until 4:50, went back to bed but no luck. Will try again tomorrow.
Wow...
I'm sorry.
Ok, so about the same thing happened this morning as well. I woke up at 4, went to bed about 5:10, but had nothing but regular dreams though I had awoke and fell back asleep multiple times thereafter. :(
This weekend was somewhat disappointing. I attempted to use that lucid weaver app that I downloaded onto my phone, and again it let me down which wasted my Friday morning opportunity. Saturday morning I went back to my old method of just waking up at 4, staying up till 5, and then going back to sleep, but aside from some mild and short-lived vibrations I did not succeed in having a LD. I am starting to get discouraged
I quick way to find out if you're in an LD or EP - do a reality check as soon as you see the dice inside the container, except that this won't be a normal RC because you already know it's not normal reality. You're finding out if you're in a LD or EP. If any part of your body exists, it's probably an LD. If not, do another chack, because it could be a trick. As soon as something is wrong, it's an LD, not an EP.
I had anywhere between 6-10 lucid dreams this morning. I haven't had a series of lucid dreams like this in a long time. I didn't follow my normal technique that I usually do. I did wake up at 4, but I did not stay awake for the hour the technique usually calls for. Instead I fell back into a regular sleep, but each time I woke up, I tried to maintain my lucidity when going back to sleep.
The first lucid started with me noticing myself in sleep paralysis, I used this to spur on the first lucid dream which was only partially formed and unstable (had trouble seeing and etc). However, I then DEILD'd my next LD, and the next, and the next....and so on all this morning. There was only one of these dreams that was of sufficient quality for the experiment, but because of how perfect it was (everything was stable, I was actually in my apartment, etc) I believe I got too excited. As I rounded the corner to go into my kitchen, it faded away despite me rubbing my hands together, moving slowly, etc. The other LDs, though entertaining, were mostly of me in different places doing random things without any easy way to redirect those dreams for the needs of the experiment.
At this point I do not blame anyone if they have lost the motivation to follow along with this thread, I haven't had a good trial in a while after all. But I will keep posting my results because I know its only a matter of time before I get the data I need. Given that I already have 3 trials done and my end goal is 25, all it will take is 2-3 good strings of LDs for me to complete the experiment. I have a knack for turning one LD into several.
Ah man I hate that when I get too excited during the dream and things start disappearing in front of my face. Hand rubbing doesn't work much for me. What works everytime now is completely stopping whatever I am doing and taking a moment to do the hand examination technique combined with verbal commands "stabilize lucidity". Are you familiar with these techniques? This is the only method that has never failed me yet. I also have a similar knack for chaining lucids together, especially during naps. I used to have several "OBEs" a day when I would nap about 2 hours after waking up. I can't take naps anymore for various reasons, but I highly suggest that you give it a shot if you are able to nap at some point in the morning. You might find much more success with OBEs if you try napping.
I am familiar with affirmations, but I am not familiar with the hand examination technique you are referring to. I would love to learn it. It seems my biggest issue when it comes to these sorts of LDs/OBEs is keeping them stabilized long enough to get good data from them. My normal LDs don't seem to have this issue for some reason.
As far as the naps go, my work schedule just changed (again lol) and now I am working 4 10-hour shifts, with friday, saturday, and sunday off. I am actually quite happy with this change. One benefit is that this will give me 50% more opportunities to get trials in per week.