>They cant even explain the mechanism behind the consciousness manipulating pseudo-RNG numbers. By nature, you cant manipulate pseudo-RNG numbers
There's only a single, infinitely long 4-dimensional electron moving backwards and forwards through time, with what we see as different electrons (all having the same charge and mass) actually being intersections where the infinite electron piece of spaghetti crosses through our three dimensions like slices of salami.
This is how our (electronic) brains interfere with RNGs inside (electronic) computers—despite the magnitude of the magnetic field around our heads falling victim to the inverse square law and being undetectable by our current understanding of how information propagates—because the electrons pushing about on metal are OUR electron. THE electron.
I made a quick experiment to see if /x/ shit is real
No, it's called "pseudo" for a reason. If you know the starting conditions of a prng you can run it over and over again and the result is always the same. That's why Terry used a true RNG as his oracle.
I know what is a pseudo RNG, I'm saying the effect also affects computer RNG (pseudo RNG).
>if you care you put in more effort and and achieve higher results
its paranormal
>That's why Terry used a true RNG as his oracle.
Always the legend. Shame he died, he was insanely intelligent
nice bit... be a shame if a cosmic ray flipped it
it's simple; everything always works in the most abstract of capacities with a lack of unknown variables and emergent behaviours. and that's just how life is, right? because it's simple
thank god this is a joke
>infinitely long 4-dimensional electron
infinite length = infinite mass, which is obviously wrong. it has to have some finite length
>electrons interfere with other electrons enough for our minds to interfere with arbitrary signals in a computer
if electrons 3 feet away can change bits in my computer, statistically, it should crash from random memory edits and loss
boolshit, explain how logically, or run a long test using probability theory
Nigger, I'm not a real scientist.
I did my best with my skills.
I can only confirm I got diferent results when I didn't though nothing and didn't care vs when I really focused.
different results dont mean that theres a difference because youre working with pseudo-random data.
you actually have to run a couple hundred to a thousand trials and measure a statistical difference
just play some online dice rolling simulator and do 100 rolls, youll see it starts to converge to an even distribution. your game is hard to reduce to a probabilistic distribution without analyzing its code, so just do a simpler test
>which is obviously wrong
because you measured a slice? hah
>if electrons 3 feet away can change bits in my computer, statistically, it should crash from random memory edits and loss
under what premise?
>if a gun fired from 3 feet away can change bits in my computer, statistically, it should crash from random memory edits and loss
can =/= will