This extensive paper covers a lot of ground, some of which is on the mark. For example:
‘Finally, by focusing on shifts in probability distributions rather than invoking direct physical
causation, the framework preserves conceptual neutrality.’ This is essential since it is unlikely most results arise from actually changing output bits. This is clearly demonstrated by using a pseudorandom generator, whose bits are unchangeable, but which can still provide highly significant results.
Results arise from observing partial entanglement between the observer’s intention and the measurement to be observed. Weak quantum measurements allow small amounts of information to be obtained without collapsing the entanglement, though it is finally collapsed when the output is actually observed. That measurement will then have a probability slightly shifted toward the desired/intended result. It’s beyond our current scope to go into much detail. But, suffice it to say, every apparently different mental or “psychic” effect is not actually different, but looks the same under this theory.
One comment I have is the effect size of virtually all published data is so small it’s hard to reach statistical significance except with huge collections, usually spanning weeks or months. In addition, correcting defects in their generator outputs using deterministic algorithms (XOring with 1, 0, 1…, or pseudorandom sequences), which everyone else does, may obscure rather than improve results. With our later generators and processing methods, we can reach statistical significance in minutes or even seconds.
You may know that Leskowitz used my generator and analysis of results for his study, though I am hardly mentioned.
My paper on LinkedIn: Comparison Testing Protocol for A.C.E and MMI_051223.pdf - Google Drive provides a simple statistical method for obtaining a probability that two sequences are different. A baseline, i.e., unaffected (unobserved) random sequence compared with a collection of data with intentional bias (should be the same aim throughout) of sufficient length should provide a p value that the sequence being affected is actually different from the baseline. This is also another statistical indication, without assumptions about causes.
Another comment: consciousness, or what some call, mind, is always anti-entropic at the local level. Everything alive becomes more organized and complex. Even crystals produce a local reduction in entropy. To be sure, energy is always consumed and the 3rd law is not violated on a larger scale.
I haven’t had time to go over the paper in detail, but I will loop back. Thanks for sharing, and for the enormous amount of research and study required to produce your paper.