An honest question.

[skeptic1]

As may be gathered from my forum name, I am a skeptic. I can see no evidence for any form of magic, thus I can see no reason to believe in it.

I am willing to be proven wrong. I would like nothing better then to be proven wrong.

Thus, I make the following proposition. I want to test a member of this group. For this test to have any value, I must insist on the use of real science. It must be observable, testable, and repeatable.

As a starting point, I propose a simple test using dice. The materials are cheap and the methodology is straightforward. We will together see whether an individual using the methods of Omnimancy can change the expected bell curve outcome of rolling a lot of dice.

I am willing to travel to preform these tests and provide the test materials. I would also be video recording the process.

I am also open to negotiation on all aspects of this test, except for the requirement that it be observable, testable, and repeatable.

I hope you will all understand that I am not willing to provide personal information in this forum. I will be completely forthcoming in private.

[LordArt]

The short answer is, it isn’t going to happen. It isn’t worth anyone’s time and you are testing the wrong thing.

Here is the longer answer in my normal long winded approach.

While you might walk away saying “See, they wouldn’t accept my challenge, so they are fake,” what you are asking for is far more complicated even beyond the technical aspect.

The first issue is time. I’m a busy person, as most successful people are (and no I don’t think it’s all about me, but run with me on this one). I have to weigh is it worth my time to convince ONE person? What is my gain, proving I’m right? While I like doing that, I’m not insecure about what I do that I feel that I must. The video won’t prove anything to anyone else. People have been video taping paranormal events since the 70s and even I consider most of what was taped a joke. (Watching ghost hunters on TV doesn’t make me believe in ghosts. I have other reasons.) You have to realize that I’m a skeptic too. The difference between you and I is that I’ve had my “Oh SHIT” moment. That moment that no matter your beliefs as a skeptic you can’t deny what just happened is outside of them. That happened to me when I was 20 and it was rather brutal. Even if I told it here it is just an anecdote. It’s like someone surviving a plane crash. Makes an interesting story, but you’ll never understand the horror they went through because you weren’t there and experienced it yourself. So while important for me, will just be another fictional tale for anyone else.

Not all “Oh Shit” moments are horrific, but certainly the more skeptical the person is, the more out of bounds the event has to be for it to break through one’s beliefs. Which brings me to my second point. You aren’t testing for magic, you are testing for minor telekinesis with the dice experiment. I highly doubt if the bell curve was shifted that all of a sudden you’d be a believer. You’d likely explain it away statistically and want something bigger. Or you’d expect a 100% outcome. Which gets me back to my first issue of wasting time. I’d have an easier time controlling the weather or changing things in your life than to do TK, but those aren’t 100% repeatable either and by definition is subjective. Otherwise, all the Omnis would be raiding casinos and buying mansions from the results(although we do well with roulette). You'd have a far easier time calculating the likely hood of seperate events happening to prove magic, not as individual situations but as a whole toward a goal, than anything else. But such things are subtle again.

Unfortunately it’s a situation of bad science, which the new age movement is FILLED with as an example. There are a lot of assumptions being made which makes the experiment doomed from the start. The biggest is that all variables are known and accounted for, when the reality is quite the opposite. You are also testing a living person which by definition never does the same thing the same way twice. People have contests of skill all the time TRYING to do things perfectly every time, but that is why they are contests, because people can’t. Everything from golf, to skeet shooting to even sailing, has far too many variables outside of one’s control to get 100% repeatable results, and the variables involved there are FAR more known.

And even if I did the proverbial fireball floating in my hand, as a scientist, you couldn’t accept my explanation that it is magic. It could be caused by any number of reasons, therefore taking my answer as the reason is irresponsible. It could be a device in another room, or some other gadget that isn’t as obvious, it could be some natural occurring phenomenon that I’m taking advantage of (like ball lightening). The problem is lack of a point of reference for science to understand why I was able to do that. And without that point of reference, nothing I would say as an explanation would matter. An explanation would have to be built from what is known to how it actually existed to make that bridge. And science isn’t there yet. Quantum physics is starting to see how strange reality really is with things like entanglement and single particles that travel multiple paths simultaneously. (They call it quantum weirdness for a reason…And yes that’s the official term)

You interest is noble, and I can appreciate that, but the above is hopefully giving you a better picture of what you are actually asking for. Take what you will from it.

[skeptic1]

Art,

I am willing to test any member of your group. While you as the founder would be ideal, any willing participant would be welcome.

I am afraid that your analogy comparing your efforts to sports is deeply flawed. A simple statistical analysis of a given competitors ability to vary results from what one would expect from random influences would be easily demonstrated. You imply in several places that I (or a valid test) would require 100% results. That is incorrect. Over a few hundred iterations, you would likely be surprised to see how few altered rolls it would take to be significant. It is true that causality could not be demonstrated, but it would show a valid phenomena was occurring.

Your example of the floating fireball is also flawed. If you could produce such an effect repeatably and under various controls, it wouldn't matter what you called it or how much I liked it. It would be a fact to be dealt with. Just as, using the dice, a repeated statistically significant variation from a random distribution would be a fact that had to be dealt with. Why not establish such facts?

Thank you for correcting me as to what omnimancy does. Since it, according to you, isn't capable of effecting any measurable change in the fall of dice, does it have any effect on the physical world that can be measured? I am more then happy to use another kind of test.

So, are any members of the Omnimancy group willing to be tested in any way?

[LordArt]

I am willing to test any member of your group. While you as the founder would be ideal, any willing participant would be welcome.

They are perfectly welcome to. Some are better than others to be sure.

I am afraid that your analogy comparing your efforts to sports is deeply flawed. A simple statistical analysis of a given competitors ability to vary results from what one would expect from random influences would be easily demonstrated. You imply in several places that I (or a valid test) would require 100% results. That is incorrect. Over a few hundred iterations, you would likely be surprised to see how few altered rolls it would take to be significant. It is true that causality could not be demonstrated, but it would show a valid phenomena was occurring.

It’s not deeply flawed, its points aren’t addressing your originally perceived goals. Most skeptics want something 100% repeatable or it isn’t valid to them. They also want causality at least for the goal of scientifically proving magic. Your goal is different it seems. You just want to “see” something in person. That’s easier to do. If you just want to “see something” in general there are lots of youtube videos.

Your example of the floating fireball is also flawed. If you could produce such an effect repeatably and under various controls, it wouldn't matter what you called it or how much I liked it. It would be a fact to be dealt with. Just as, using the dice, a repeated statistically significant variation from a random distribution would be a fact that had to be dealt with. Why not establish such facts?

Because such facts have already been established by others and have been dismissed by the scientific community (remember the vids since the 70s?). So it still comes down to simply convincing only you. If you were part of some think-tank with a good reputation, then that might be different since that might have a better chance of establishing facts. It isn’t like paranormal research has just started with you, it’s been going on for decades if not longer. Most research has to be repeatable with an independent lab with no connection to the original group to establish anything close to fact.

Thank you for correcting me as to what omnimancy does. Since it, according to you, isn't capable of effecting any measurable change in the fall of dice, does it have any effect on the physical world that can be measured? I am more then happy to use another kind of test.

You aren’t going to get very far in science if you don’t check the details. I never said it couldn’t affect dice, or even in a measurable way. I just said other things were easier. When you go to the casino, one can just as easily lose everything in one roll, as gain. (In my younger days playing a RPG with a bunch of mages is interesting let me tell you...) My group itself bought an expensive high end scientific thermometer a while back that can measure down to .001 degrees F of change. I had to write a program to monitor the thermometer for delta change of the temperature since at that level of detail even the electricity moving through the probe creates a heating effect, so had to be filtered out. (We even isolated the probe in a sealed cooler filled with packing peanuts so wind and ambient temperature changes couldn’t get at it easily) Meaning, it was easier to measure change by how quickly or how slowly the probe changed temperature rather than the absolute temperature. So if it heated faster or cooled faster we could measure that change. We had a lot of repeatable (and surprising) results there. However, the results aren’t as impressive when you consider the scale of it, but you just want to see something measurable. Direct physical effects are hard, but events are easy in comparison. Meaning, it’s easier to “have something happen to fail” on a car and blow up, then just will the gas tank to explode. Magic works best with synchronicity and chaos control, not direct physical effects. Not that direct physical effects don’t happen, but they are random and not at will repeatable. Not that we aren’t trying however. (Trust me, it IS a goal of ours hence sinking the money into such equipment)

[StormSeeker]

So, are any members of the Omnimancy group willing to be tested in any way?

Not to come off selfish or such but: are you paying? And if so, how much, and is it only if we produce an effect or is it also covering our time?

I run my own business. When I'm not doing that, I'm furthering my own life and self, doing a lot of various spiritual stuff and spending time with friends and nature. If you seriously want me, or anyone here, to walk away from stuff that is by far more important to them and gives something back to them, you're going to have to provide adequate motivation.

Asking is cute, but...it's best that you realize you're not dealing with a bunch of teens here like perhaps many of the forums and sites out there are populated with. Most of us are mid twenties to thirties with jobs or their own businesses, and certainly very busy lives.

There's also the issue that, since for us, magic is very much intangible most of the time and things that we may have influenced to happen, are also explainable through other ways, it kind of leaves some of us wondering if what we do sometimes, is real.

And then there's you coming along saying, "Come prove it to me." Well, what happens if we don't meet your criteria, where does our self confidence go? Magic and skills in such are already widely disputed and not well understood. Why would we actively throw ourselves at more?

Even those of us with big "oh shit" moments, as Arthur put it, are often still skeptical days or months down the line. This is a natural reaction: the emotional response has died down, we're not caught up in the intensity of the situation, the mind, ego and everything else, kick in and question things, and insecurities kick in as well.

Whilst we're aware that this doesn't mean that what we did or what happened wasn't real, we're human and some of us still cling to the lingering doubt and worries and uncertainties.

I think honestly, I'd have to be able to really pull a fireball out of thin air, for me to believe, 100%. And I suspect that'd be what it'd take for many of us to entertain the idea of being tested.

That said, honestly, you're a person on a forum that I don't know, who'd be coming to visit me from another place in the country, to "test" my abilities to influence dice, and that just weirds me out. I'm not looking for a stalker.

Arthur also makes some very good points. If you're aware of parapsychology, you'll know that a lot of the issue in repetition of psychic or magical skills within the tests of parapsych may well have to do with the influence of those observing or conducting the tests. Prof. Morris of the Edinburgh University parapsych department came across similar when running tests on volunteers from the public, as has the Stanford Research Institute and several other groups.

Even the police who worked with Beverly Jaegers' Psi Squad, who publically backed and consulted with her group (as did many others,) - Bev Jaegers being the psychic who made headlines through winning the lottery - knew she wasn't spot on 100% of the time.

(I don't remember the details but I think it was 80-90%. Very impressive as a number, but depending on how much mentalism based skills she was incorporating and how much was lucky or logical guesswork, that number seems less impressive. For the record, yes, she could influence a physical object as well.)

It's also worth noting that in the realm of science, statistics require 75%+ correct repetition to be considered "paranormal". (Not many people know this. Usually folks think that if the score is above 50%, it's significant, when in fact, according to statistics, it must be 75% or above to register as psychic ability. A significantly negative score which is also repeated is equally valid. I didn't know this until recently either and was surprised to learn it as well, after having spent years in the psychic community and parapsychology community where 50%+ is commonly considered significant.)

Statistics are also rather flexible, depending on who's doing the calculations and what they're looking for.

I believe it was Dr Susan Blackmore, of the London parapsychology community, who gave up on trying to find proof of the paranormal and instead came to the conclusion that, given, not just our technology but more importantly, our very minute understanding of our reality and how things function (let alone the mind and the phenomena we're trying to observe,) figuring This Stuff out isn't going to happen in today's age.

When we try, we're doing the equivalent of trying to shove stuff we don't understand, into the understanding we already have of the universe. And if someone can repeat a dice roll 9 out of 10 times, 50 times, versus 75 out of 100, that doesn't mean that it's not paranormal, psychic or magical.

What it means, as Science is only now beginning to understand and admit to, is that it doesn't fit in with our statistical analysis and our understanding of reality.

If Quantum is even partially correct, statistics may as well be thrown out the window, rendering every test we have for psychical influence, out the window, because things like 'the odds' and 'repetition' become moot, and Random Number Generators, not so random anymore.

If you truly want a field that explores repeatable, testable activity, with masses of data to explore, and you're okay with perception based versus influence based, I recommend exploring Controlled Remote Viewing.

There's always Uri Geller as well. Have you asked him if he'll volunteer for testing? (Not that he hasn't already; he went through the SRI process, but it does seem like you want to see it firsthand.)

[skeptic1]

So you do now claim to be able to effect the fall of dice, difficult though it be, and can do so in a measurable manner. In your first reply, you addressed this by saying in part " Otherwise, all the Omnis would be raiding casinos and buying mansions from the results", which would seem to indicate a lack of ability. In any case you are now clearly saying that you could in fact measurably influence the fall of dice.

Unfortunately, you are unwilling to engage in testing of your claim for a variety of reasons, none of which are very valid. The bottom line is that you simply don't want to and that's fine. I must say that I am not surprised. I have many time made such proposals as this only to be rebuffed for one reason or another. One comes to expect it. It almost appears that people are unwilling to be tested in fear that they would fail. In any case, there is no point in continuing discussion with you on this subject.

Are any members of this group willing to put their money where their mouth is?

[elfmaiden]

This is my first post, so be gentle, 'k?

At first I was really happy that skeptic1 started this thread. I've been casually lurking here for a little while, mostly a few months ago but now again recently. I'm looking for a lot of things, and maybe because I'm not sure what I want, I'm not sure of Omnimancy is it, kwim? Like, I know I want to make positive changes in my life, to protect myself from the people and situations that were hurting me (physical and psychic pain, loooooong story) but I'm just not in a place emotionally where I could invest a lot of effort learning about something, building up my hopes that this is going to finally be it. What I'm really afraid of is that whatever I hope to change only seems changed because I want to see it that way. I don't think I need someone to prove anything to me - it's more a reassurance thing for me. I just can't trust my feelings right now.

So am I reading this right, that I couldn't trust an actual physical demonstration, either? What is the right thing to look for, then? I know that "real" can be totally different to different people, so how does anyone know for sure that it's Omnimancy, not their own wishful thinking, at work?

I'm sure I sound like an idiot, sorry about that. I'd love to say I'm so much less an idiot IRL but that's probably wishful thinking again, LOL.[/i]

ADMIN NOTE: I accidently hit edit rather than quote...nothing was changed.

[skeptic1]

Stormseeker,

In what way did I impugn that you or anyone else was not an adult? I find that assertion very confusing.

In any case, my request is very simple. If omnimancy is capable of measurably and repeatably effecting the fall of dice, that can be documented. Why not document it?

Quantum mechanics has no application of which I am aware to what I am proposing. Precisely what quantum effect do you propose to be a confound? In what way does QM invalidate simple statistical analysis of numbers? (You need not answer yourself, if you wish. Just point me to the relevant articles with the answer.)

I apologize, but after reading this several times, I can not comprehend what you're trying to say. " And if someone can repeat a dice roll 9 out of 10 times, 50 times, versus 75 out of 100, that doesn't mean that it's not paranormal, psychic or magical." Could you please clarify?

[LordArt]

So you do now claim to be able to effect the fall of dice, difficult though it be, and can do so in a measurable manner.

Somehow I think how "measureable" would be defined wouldn't be the same between you and I, but that's ok. The point is moot.

Unfortunately, you are unwilling to engage in testing of your claim for a variety of reasons, none of which are very valid.

Because you don't like the answer, or that the answer doesn't further your goals doesn't make them invalid. That's rather self-centered don't you think? But perhaps I'm seeing a pattern. I'm quite sure if you asked Donald Trump to take time out of his day to walk you through what he does he'll just do it because you as some random person emailed him. You do realise that is effectively what you are doing don't you? And you are getting annoyed because I don't stop what I'm doing JUST to convince you? Some of the people you've talked to in the past probably can't do anything. But I'm also just as sure that many of them simply have nothing to prove to you. Just because it matters to YOU that it be proved to yourself doesn't mean it matters to them, and it certainly doesn't matter to me. It said in my first post that you'd cop the attitude of "Well, I'm right because they won't take me up on my challenge". And you are correct, there is no more point of this discussion since you've shown your true colors.

Are any members of this group willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Isn't that just the point you don't get isn't it? Where is YOUR proverbial money to make it worth THEIR while? What do they owe you?

[Oyama]

Your test is pointless, but I'll do it. Affecting dice rolls is not an accurate depiction of what most magic does, it tends to work better when there are many factors that can all work sychronistically toward bringing about some event, especially when many of those factors are people, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

You can PM me the details.

[skeptic1]

Art,

I hope that you are more polite to other honest knowledge seekers then you have been to me. My "true colors"?

I do think your reasons not to do it weren't very valid. Your claim of being so busy that one evening of testing at a time and place of your choosing (I said I would come to you) is impossible is not very plausible. Your claims that you don't want to waste your time with one person was belied by your not answering what time/number of skeptics would be acceptable to you. That is all moot. You don't want to be tested so that is that.

I am hardly getting annoyed. You may simply withdraw from the discussion while I see if others are more willing then you.

[skeptic1]

Oyama,

Thank you. I will take a day or so and set up some specific test parameters and get in tough with you privately to determine how we will proceed.

[Fire_on_High]

Art,

I hope that you are more polite to other honest knowledge seekers then you have been to me.

Most other "honest knowledge seekers" are more polite to him.

He doesn't owe you proof, and in spite of the fact he owes you diddly squat, he's made a sincere effort to explain to you the ways in which you're approaching this wrong. Never mind the fact he knows what his own system can do and excels in, you just want to plow on ahead for what *you* think it should do, then condemn when he won't dance for your pleasure.

[skeptic1]

Fire on High,

There is no need for sarcastic quote marks. I am in fact an honest seeker after knoweldge. I was at no time impolite, unless you count an honestly and civilly voiced disagreement impolite.

I am also confused by this:

"Never mind the fact he knows what his own system can do and excels in, you just want to plow on ahead for what *you* think it should do..."

I proposed a test with the coda that I was willing to change my parameters. He made it clear that it was his position that his system could do what I asked. If I had been told that this system simply did not allow for thge manipulation of falling dice, I would have asked for something else to test. I plowed ahead with what I was told omnimancy can do.

[LordArt]

This is my first post, so be gentle, 'k?

Not a problem. Smile

At first I was really happy that skeptic1 started this thread.

I was too, but he was too insistent for his own good and doesn't realize how he comes across. I was hoping to educate him on what he was actually asking of people so he went about it better, since it seemed like he didn't do much research into the matter thinking that hollywood is a good description of what is typical in magic. I'm sure a lot of people simply ignore him because of his approach that people should prove it to him simply because he says so. I'm too old for that sort of game and no longer have a desire to prove it to everyone I meet nor a need.

What I'm really afraid of is that whatever I hope to change only seems changed because I want to see it that way.

Sometimes change is only needed within. Sometimes it is needed externally. It really depends on the situation but both are quite feasible.

So am I reading this right, that I couldn't trust an actual physical demonstration, either? What is the right thing to look for, then? I know that "real" can be totally different to different people, so how does anyone know for sure that it's Omnimancy, not their own wishful thinking, at work?

No a physical demonstration is quite real, but I think what you would accept as a demonstration and what the skeptic would is two different things. At my lectures I say don't believe me, prove it for yourself. At those lectures that are also workshops that the group does, individuals work in small groups with students of Omnimancy and are taught the basics. In those sessions, such things as energy balls and ley lines are taught. Energy balls are the quickest and easiest thing to pick up on by an individual. Visually, nothing is there for the video cameras but you feel it anyways. Considering what is felt, that is enough for some people, but admittedly some can argue that its psychological. When a person starts learning, the person teaching observes what they are doing and starts critiquing what they are doing. Since the person learning isn't saying what or how they are doing what they are doing, being told what only the learner should know and didn't mention by the teacher is a good proof that not only are they working with magic but that others can see/sense it. It's good confirmation and builds confidence. I remember at one lecture at Rutgers in the middle of one of the workshops I was invited to do, one of the attendees got up and bolted out of the room going "holy shit, this stuff is real?!?" I guess he was like skeptic here. (Good times) But you aren't going to go to lectures and see people playing with dice or shooting lightning bolts.

I'm sure I sound like an idiot, sorry about that. I'd love to say I'm so much less an idiot IRL but that's probably wishful thinking again, LOL.

You aren't an idiot and there is nothing that you said that made you such. You are correctly investigating your options. I WILL say that Omnimancy is JUST about magic, not about spirituality, so if you are looking for something uplifting spiritually, we aren't it. We are just about the practical. You should find a path that suits your end goals, which is why that is one of the questions on the application thread.

I hope that helped.