A.E.P Experiment (Accuracy of Ethereal Projections)

[TheUncanny]

I am designing an experiment, its purpose to examine if I, as an individual, am able to accurately perceive an object by means other than my five physical senses. Therefore in this experiment I will be perceiving an object via “out-of-body experiences”, more specifically “Ethereal Projections”. There will be a total of 12 trials, and each trial will consist of the following routine: 1.) I will place a single die in a small wooden box, and then latch the lid shut. 2.) I will then proceed to shake the box for five (5) consecutive seconds, allowing the die to settle on an unknown value between 1 and 6. 3.) I will place the box on the windowsill next to my bed and proceed to induce an OBE. 4.) While out of body, I will open the box and “look” at the value of the die. 5.) After coming to, and without picking up or otherwise moving the box, I will open it and note the actual value of the die. 6.) I will then record the data here and in my journal. 7.) I shall repeat this sequence of steps until all 12 trials have been completed 8.) After step 7 is satisfied, I will then calculate the overall probabilities of my results Assuming the law of probability, ideally 12 trials should produce 2 “hits” simply by chance (1/6 x 12 trials = 2 matches, where 1/6 equals the probability of matching a number by chance). Thus, should my findings produce significantly more matches (or “hits”) than 2, the experiment would suggest the existence of some sort of sensory perception other than that which can be accounted for by the five senses currently recognized by the scientific community. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself, but should this experiment go smoothly, I expect that I will repeat it to ensure more reliable results. For supplementary information, click here

[dodobird]

You may have a problem to see it because it's dark inside the box. Better open the cover after you shake the box ( maybe while you wear a mask to hide all sight ) and put it in a location where you can't see which number it is unless you go over to it and look from above.

[TheUncanny]

Well, I was going to open the box while out of body. Perhaps I should do a few preliminary trials so that I dont run into any unexpected problems mid-experiment. Also, I think I am going to do a few of this preliminary runs and see how many dice would be the most effective, instead of just using one. Ideally I could do 6 dice per trial, but remembering a 6-digit number while out of body may be too difficult. I think ill do the following: Prelim 1.) 1 die Prelim 2.) 2 dice Prelim 3.) 3 dice Prelim 4.) 4 dice Prelim 5.) 6 dice not only to see how many dice I can effectively use per trial, but also for a little practice before the real thing.

[dodobird]

Well, I was going to open the box while out of body. Perhaps I should do a few preliminary trials so that I dont run into any unexpected problems mid-experiment. well, you can't "physically" open the box while OOB because your hands will go through it. Maybe you can paranormally see into the box, but it will still be dark. In any case I think you are adding here an unnecessary difficulty by keeping the box closed.

[TheUncanny]

Perhaps. I could always do prelims with and without the top being closed, just to see if it has any effects. Its true, the last one of these types of experiments I did, I didnt have to move or "change" anything to see the object, but this time I do.

[thafrenchman]

You could just use a box with one transparent side (glass or plastic foil) and shake it at an angle where you can't see the dice. You could then leave it on the floor or on a table next to a light source so you can se clearly.

[TheUncanny]

I bought the box at a hobby store for a buck, but when I was there I saw a few boxes that had one tranparent side, also for a buck. Maybe it would be worth buying one, what do you think?

[dodobird]

I bought the box at a hobby store for a buck, but when I was there I saw a few boxes that had one tranparent side, also for a buck. Maybe it would be worth buying one, what do you think? Sure, or just open the cover after the shaking while your eyes are shut, and then you can save a buck.

[TheUncanny]

enough with your '' rationality '' kidding. I suppose that would work fine. But still, it would be nice to have such a box for this experiment...plus its only dollar for a professional grade ethereal-projection-dice-box

[thafrenchman]

I think it's a good idea to buy the one with the transparent side, it's just 1 buck and you won't have to be looking away while you uncover the box and put a lamp over it. Plus it's a more professional attitude towards your experiment. I see that one of the problems your experiment has is that it is possible for you to guess correctly out of luck. How about if there was no way you could know what was behind the card? Just get a friend to draw a simple figure on a piece of paper and stick it on a window like you did with cards on your last experiment. That way, even if what you see while in OBE is fluid/ unstable there is no way you could have guessed out of luck. I have never had an OBE, so I can't experiment on my own, but I look forward to your results.

[TheUncanny]

So I did go buy that box yesterday. I also changed a few things about the experiment to better suit this new way of seeing the dice. First, I moved the location of the box from my windowsill to a shelf next to a lamp (its one of those tall one's with three individual lamps on it). I replaced one of the bulbs with a 7.5 watt night-light bulb, which then lights up the box at night without keeping me awake. Early this morning I once again attempted to do a few preliminary runs, which I’m glad I did because I ran into a few problems. I ended up having two lucid dreams instead of OBEs, but both involved doing this experiment. After setting up the box and everything, I set the saltcube timer and went to bed. In the first lucid dream I had, I went to the box to see what number was on the die. It looked like a 2, but it was rather unstable and the more I tried to focus on it, the more unstable it became, and as a result, the more it looked like a 3. Any who, the actual number was a 4, which didn’t surprise me because it wasn’t until I had awoken that I noticed that in the dream, the box was out in the hall way instead of in my room and on the shelf. Clearly I didn’t attain a sufficient level of lucidity to do the experiment properly. I wrote down the results, put in another die (making it two dice in the box), shook the box up, and went back to bed. Like the first, the second lucid dream I had wasn't as clear or "whole" as I wanted it to be. In the dream I looked in the box and saw a 6. I woke up and the number was a 6, but then I got into a fight with my fiancé about some nonsense when I realized that I had just experienced a false awakening, and was still dreaming. I then woke up for real, went over to the box to find a 3 and a 6. Again, though I got one number right, I wasn’t lucid enough to remember that I put two dice in instead of one. Conclusion, I need more practice before moving on to the actual experiment. thafrenchman, on one had I know what you’re saying about making the picture something I can't get right by chance... but on the other hand I know that I don't need such drastic measures to produce reliable results. One of the benefits of using dice is that, unlike what you propose, the odds can be calculated because there are actual numeric values being worked with. This basically means that I can quantify my results using dice, which is very important. And even though I could get a few numbers right by luck, in the long run (over the span of numerous trials), it will become clear whether my results can be explained by chance alone, or if they suggest something more. 1/6 is the probability of getting a number right by chance, meaning that for every 6 trials (where only one die is being used per trial), odds are that I should get roughly 1 right by chance alone. Of course, I could get more or less than that right in only six trials, but if I do many more trials, my results should average out to be about 1 success out of every 6 trials...unless there is something else going on. This is why I want to use as many dice as I can manage per trial. If I used two dice instead of one, Ill have twice the data to work with. Or, if I could use 6 dice at a time, I would have the same amount of data to work with in only 2 trials, as I would with 12 single-die trials. Hell, the box can hold 9 dice, it would be ideal if I could take advantage of that so that I don't have to have hundreds of OBEs to get credible results. I’m aiming for 120 individual sets of data, which could either be 120 single-die trials, 60 2-dice trials, 40 3-dice trials, 30 4-dice trials, 20 6-dice trials, etc. But first I need to know how many dice I can manage at a time, which is why I’m doing the preliminary trials.

[nina]

I dunno...I think you're overcomplicating things a tad. I tried to do something similar to this at one point with a deck of cards. I would scatter a deck of cards across my bedside table and without looking...flip one of the cards face up. Then I would lay down to take a nap...in which I usually always find myself WILDing and what I thought was APing. So...all I would have to do in my AP or OBE or whatever, would be to raise my head up and look over at the table and remember what card is face up. Then when I woke from the AP I would write down whatever card I saw...then look at my table to check and see if I was correct. I was never able to successfully complete the experiment. But I only tried a few times before giving up. Reading your last reply...I experienced the same or similar problems which is what deterred me from continuing the experiment. At times I found my head too heavy to even lift from my pillow to look at the card. Other times...I was not able to fully turn my neck. When I was able to move sufficiently, the cards weren't even there. Each time was more of a lucid dream/FA and definitely not an AP. Though I'm not really certain there is a difference between the three.

[dodobird]

I dunno...I think you're overcomplicating things a tad. I tried to do something similar to this at one point with a deck of cards. I would scatter a deck of cards across my bedside table and without looking...flip one of the cards face up. Then I would lay down to take a nap...in which I usually always find myself WILDing and what I thought was APing. So...all I would have to do in my AP or OBE or whatever, would be to raise my head up and look over at the table and remember what card is face up. The problem with this, is that you can never be sure that you didn't raise your head, see the card, and fall aleep again without remembering that you rose, and after you wake up, you may know the card face subconsciously. BTW, here is an article about OOB study that I found very interesting: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=50

[thafrenchman]

You're right ethen, the picture thing is not really necessary, and I see you've got the whole probability thing with the dice under control. Good luck with your experiment, I'm curious to see your results.

[nina]

The problem with this, is that you can never be sure that you didn't raise your head, see the card, and fall aleep again without remembering that you rose, and after you wake up, you may know the card face subconsciously. Wait what? Sorry but I don't do weird things like that in my sleep lol. As long as you're honest in your experiment, and of course you will want to be, because this would provide proof that you are actually APing then I don't see "cheating" whether conscious or subconscious an issue. And I don't know much about probability & stats and all that, but I would think that the more dice you put in the box, the higher the probability of guessing the correct numbers. For example, you had a 3 and a 6...and you remember seeing a 6. Ok...but you only remembered one number so your chance of guessing right actually doubled. Right? *confused*

[Tornado Joe]

Hey Ethen, I'm glad I came across your post - your idea might be ok for working on Astral Projecting, however I think it's an even better system for experimenting with quantum physics and remote viewing. I've been wanting to do such remote viewing experiments before but most require two people, a reader and an interviewer. I won't go into the details of how it all works, but it basically comes down to this: no outcome is ever definite untill it is observed. Meaning, when you put a die in a box and shake it, the number that die lands on is releveant to the moment you open the box. Up untill that moment, the side the die lands on is still undefined. So, if you shake the box and leave it closed, then concentrate on a particular number, you would be able to effect the outcome of the die once you open the box to chek the answer. That's right, your intent could go back in time and effect the die just moments before it landed back when you first shook the box!! Sounds pretty whacky- but tests such as this are being done on a large scale, with hundreds, even thousands of people from across the globe joining in experiments. Your idea seems like a perfect way to practice without having to ask someone (who might think you're nuts) for help! Now I gotta go shopping for some containers and dice

[TheUncanny]

I dunno...I think you're overcomplicating things a tad. I tried to do something similar to this at one point with a deck of cards. I would scatter a deck of cards across my bedside table and without looking...flip one of the cards face up. Then I would lay down to take a nap...in which I usually always find myself WILDing and what I thought was APing. So...all I would have to do in my AP or OBE or whatever, would be to raise my head up and look over at the table and remember what card is face up. Then when I woke from the AP I would write down whatever card I saw...then look at my table to check and see if I was correct. I was never able to successfully complete the experiment. But I only tried a few times before giving up. Reading your last reply...I experienced the same or similar problems which is what deterred me from continuing the experiment. At times I found my head too heavy to even lift from my pillow to look at the card. Other times...I was not able to fully turn my neck. When I was able to move sufficiently, the cards weren't even there. Each time was more of a lucid dream/FA and definitely not an AP. Though I'm not really certain there is a difference between the three. I did a similar experiment 2 years ago. I copy/pasted the information I gathered from it in my journal. You can a find a link to it at the end of my first post in this thread. I know such things are complicated. I even tried to work out a point system to better quantify the likelihood of some cards being mistaken for other cards (based on how similar they look to each other), but to no avail. This is one reason why I decided to work with dice instead of cards. Less variables to worry about. And I don't know much about probability & stats and all that, but I would think that the more dice you put in the box, the higher the probability of guessing the correct numbers. For example, you had a 3 and a 6...and you remember seeing a 6. Ok...but you only remembered one number so your chance of guessing right actually doubled. Right? *confused* Yes, the odds of doing so would be 2/6, or roughly 33.33% chance that such a result was coincidence alone. Of course, I wasn't nearly as lucid as I needed to have been during that specific round because I didn’t even remember that there were two dice in the box...so I'm not really interested in the results I have gotten so far. But back to the probabilities. You are right, having two dice in the box and only guessing one value is a 2/6 probability of success; seeing as you have two 1 out of 6 chances to be correct (1 per die). But things change when you have two dice in the box, and you attempt to get both numbers correct. You technically have 36 different combinations the dice could be, assuming that you take order into account. Doing so would mean that you would have to differentiate results like "5 and 1" from "1 and 5", seeing as the order of the numbers are different. But given the nature of the experiment, I can not differentiate such results because the dice aren’t going to be in any sort of an order after shaking the box. Plus I have no way to differentiate one die from another. Thus, since order is not going to be considered, the following equation is used to calculate the probabilities: x/6y “x” = the number of values you observe (while out of body) “y” = the number of dice you actually use In the event of a discrepancy between the number of dice observed and the number of dice in the box, I could still use this equation to calculate valid probabilities with valid implications. However, I assume such discrepancies could only arise from being insufficiently lucid. So for the sake of simplicity, and at the risk of ignoring potentially insightful data, I feel that I should only take into account trials where there is no discrepancy between the number of dice observed, and the number of dice being used. Do you think that this is a good or bad idea?

[TheUncanny]

Hey Ethen, I'm glad I came across your post - your idea might be ok for working on Astral Projecting, however I think it's an even better system for experimenting with quantum physics and remote viewing. I've been wanting to do such remote viewing experiments before but most require two people, a reader and an interviewer. I won't go into the details of how it all works, but it basically comes down to this: no outcome is ever definite untill it is observed. Meaning, when you put a die in a box and shake it, the number that die lands on is releveant to the moment you open the box. Up untill that moment, the side the die lands on is still undefined. So, if you shake the box and leave it closed, then concentrate on a particular number, you would be able to effect the outcome of the die once you open the box to chek the answer. That's right, your intent could go back in time and effect the die just moments before it landed back when you first shook the box!! Sounds pretty whacky- but tests such as this are being done on a large scale, with hundreds, even thousands of people from across the globe joining in experiments. Your idea seems like a perfect way to practice without having to ask someone (who might think you're nuts) for help! Now I gotta go shopping for some containers and dice I was under the impression that the observer effect only seems to happen on the quantum level. If im not mistaken, that theory falls apart as soon as it comes to any level of reality beyond the quantum level (as in the sub-molecular level, the molecular level, and so forth all the way upto macro levels of reality). But im no expert, maybe im wrong.

[nina]

Hmm...what if you colored the dice?

[TheUncanny]

It could seriously cut down on the number of trials I would have to do, thats for sure. Anyway, Im having second thoughts about my math. Im not so sure that the x/6y is the correct equation. Im going to have get back to you all after I figure out if my math is right

[nina]

I think the more simple you can make it the better. But I absolutely fail at math, so sorry I can't be of more help. Good luck. ^_^

[TheUncanny]

I figured it out, Its factorials. I need to use the equation 6^x/x!, where x= the number of dice being used. You see, 6^x equals the total number of possible value-combinations given the number of dice I use. But since my dice are all identical to one another, I cannot take into account the different premutations (or unique combinations) that the values coould appear in. So, I have to first figure out how many different permutations there are, given the number of dice I use. Thats what the "x!" equals. If I have 4 dice, then 4! = 4 x 3 x 2 x 1, or 24 different unique combinations (permutations) that the 4 values could appear in. But to remove that from the equation, i simply have to divide the total number of possible value-combinations by the number of possible permutations, and what I have left is the probability of my results! *sigh* I am relieved. [edit] actually i dont think thats right either....$%^#!

[TheUncanny]

lmao, OK...i have it for real this time I was on the right track, but I got a bit impatient as soon as I discovered the permutation thing. You don't "simply" divide one number by the other. You see, no matter how many dice you use, you will always ALWAYS have only 6 value-combinations that cannot be rearranged in any other way. If you are using two dice, they are 11, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66. If you are using three dice, they are 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, etc. As you can see, there is only one order those numbers can be in. But for all other number combinations, there more than one way to arrange them. There are x! amount of ways to be exact. For example, if you have two dice and you numbers are 1 and 2, then you can arrange as 12 or 21 (2! = 2 x 1 = 2 ways to arrange them). If you have three dice and your numbers are 1, 2, and 3, then you can arrange them as 123 132 213 231 312 321 (3! = 3 x 2 x 1 = 6 ways to arrange them). Blah blah blah the correct equation is ((6^x - 6)/x!) + 6. 6^x equals how many total possible value combinations there are, taking order (different permutations) into account. You subtract 6 because 6 of those combinations cannot be arranged in any other way. This will give you how many total *rearrageable combinations* remain. You then divide that value by the number of permutations each other combination can be rearranged by (x!). This will give you how many different combinations there are, taking into account that order (or different permutations of the same number) no longer matters. You then add the 6 un-rearrangeable number combinations back into the total value and what you have left is the number of possible outcomes, regardless of permutations. Thank you and good night *falls on face

[TheUncanny]

*rasies self up off face There are x! amount of ways to be exact. dear god, I just realized that is only accurate when we are talking about two or less dice. When there are talking about three or more, a more sophicated equation is needed. Someone shoot me.

[thafrenchman]

What if you use a multi-sided die?