Can a random number generator predict the future?

Two decades of intense experimentation and complementary theoretical modeling leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in these PEAR studies are significantly correlated with subjective human processes, akin to such ineffable experiences as joy, wonder, creativity, and love. Yet, contemporary scientific rigor leaves little room for subjective correlates in its mechanistic representation of reality.

This book reexamines the role of consciousness in the light of a new body of experimental data on the interaction of human operators with various technical devices and information-processing systems. Many philosophical fibers are required to sift these results into a coherent model; but once the essential concepts are in place, human consciousness indeed emerges endowed with an active component. By virtue of the manner in which it exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, consciousness has the ability to bias probabilistic processes, and thereby to avail itself of certain margins of reality.

Several million experimental trials investigating the ability of human operators to affect the output of various random physical physical devices have demonstrated small but statistically significant shifts of the distribution means that correlate with operator intention, exhibit repeatable idiosyncratic individual variations, and display consistent patterns of gender dependence, series position development, and internal distribution structure.

Several extensive experimental studies of human/machine interactions, wherein the human operators and the target machines are separated by distances of up to several thousand miles, yield anomalous results comparable in scale and character to those produced under conditions of physical proximity. The output distributions of random binary events produced produced by a variety of microelectronic random and pseudorandom generators, as well as by a macroscopic random mechanical cascade, display small but replicable and statistically significant mean shifts correlated with the remote operators’ pre-stated intentions, and feature cumulative achievement patterns similar to those of the corresponding local experiments. Individual operator effect sizes distribute normally, with the majority of participants contributing to the overall effect. Patterns of specific count populations are also similar to those found in the corresponding local experiments. The insensitivity of the size and details of these results to intervening distance and time adds credence to a large database of precognitive remote perception experiments, and suggests that these two forms of anomaly may draw from similar mechanisms of information exchange between human consciousness and random physical processes.

After all the caveats, however, we can say that the evidence for an effect of consciousness on REGs is strong. We are driven by that evidence to infer that something like a "consciousness field" exists, and that intentions or emotional states which structure the field are conveyed as information that is absorbed into the distribution of output values of labile physical systems. The output of the REG differs from what would be expected without the influence of consciousness.

The beauty (and key flaw) in this is, of course, that it makes no predictions but rather the correlations come from after-the-fact data mining.

I suggest reading this to get a realistic view of the results. http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

Anyone know what method their RNG's use to generate random numbers? And any systematic errors that might show up after running it for so long?