Have you ever had a strong sense of knowing something before you could have known it and been right in a way that is unexplainable?
Have you had an experience that felt like remote viewing, telepathy, or precognition (whether or not you believe those words describe what actually happened)?
Have you had a dream that turned out to correspond to a real event you had no ordinary way of knowing about?
Have you had a coincidence so specific and so unlikely that you’ve never been able to fully convince yourself it was just chance?
Have you had an out-of-body experience, or a near-death experience that included perception you couldn’t account for by ordinary means?
Have you had a sense of contact with someone who had died that was a presence, a communication, or something that felt like more than memory or grief?
Have you experienced a sudden or profound shift in perception or awareness that you’d describe as a spiritual awakening including anything like a kundalini
experience?
Have you had any experience that left you genuinely uncertain about the limits of what ordinary perception can explain?
Are you drawn to meditation, contemplative practice, or other ways of attending very deeply to the present moment and have you noticed anything in that practice you can’t account for?
If you answered yes to any of these, especially if the experience has stayed with you and you still can’t fully explain it, I would love for you to take a prescreening for my next experiment.
You can read more below to find out what it’s all about or just start the pre-screen by clicking HERE.
You will need to complete 5 sessions (over a time period convenient to you) before you being scored. Each session takes around 6 minutes to complete.
Something Strange Showed Up in My Last Experiment And I Need Your Help Finding Out What The Heck It Was
I ran an experiment at the end of 2025 using 100+ human subjects and AI. Something showed up that I want to take a closer look but I need a very specific kind of person to take the next steps with.
What I Was Testing
Experiment 4 used a quantum random number generator (QRNG). These are devices that produce truly random sequences of 0s and 1s, based on physical processes at the quantum level.
In each session, the subjects were given a target color, told to focus their intent on that color and pushed a button that called a QRNG stream. That was it. They focused their intent and pushed a button 30 times per session.
Where It Got Interesting
Most of my subjects came from a survey panel. They took the experiment once. I wasn’t expecting to find anything from such a short form experiment (30 blocks per session) I was really just testing whether my experimental design worked the way I intended with a small group before investing in anything larger. One of the numbers I was tracking was something called the Hurst exponent, a measure of temporal structure in the bit sequences. When I went back and looked at the data after the fact I found something I wasn’t looking for. The people who had done multiple sessions (I am fairly certain they were from the remote viewing community on Reddit as they were the only ones I had asked to complete multiple sessions) showed something unusual in that post hoc analysis. That’s the thing I want to understand.
What was different was the arrangement of the bits over time. The order in which they arrived had a structure to it.
I was looking at the clumping of bits (how 1s and 0s tended to clump in runs) and whether that differed between the subject stream and the control stream. Then I shuffled the bits randomly 500 times and checked whether the pattern survived. If it did, the pattern doesn’t depend on the order of bits at all and is easy to explain by chance. But if shuffling destroyed it that means the order mattered. In a truly random sequence it shouldn’t. Why it mattered is the question I don’t have an answer to yet.
Random bits from a QRNG have no order imposed on them and each one
is independent of the last. I don’t know what caused these temporal patterns to show up in 5+ sessions. It could be a statistical fluctuation in a small sample. It could be something about who these people are. Or it could be something more interesting. That’s what I am designing Experiment 5 to find out.
What I find genuinely fascinating about a temporal pattern specifically is that physics has established that rearranging information without changing the totals is, at least in principle, something that requires no energy at all. Erasing information costs something thermodynamically but reordering it may not. So if something is interacting with these sequences, it isn’t necessarily doing so by forcing outcomes or expending energy in any classical sense.
This connects to something even stranger that physics has already had to accept having to with quantum systems showing nonlocal correlations (measurable structure without a classical signal being sent). I’m not claiming my experiment demonstrates that. But entanglement suggests the universe already does strange things with information and correlation that we do not yet understand. So, when I find a temporal pattern that should not exist in a random stream I have to dig a bit deeper.
What I measured might have nothing to do with any of this. It could merely be a statistical fluctuation in a small sample. But if it holds up with
more subjects and more sessions, then something about the process that generates these sequences, before they resolve into the 1s and 0s we can
measure, is different for certain people than it is for others. And that would be worth understanding.
Who I Am Looking For
I took this experiment myself many times. My data shows nothing unusual. No temporal structure, no pattern that survives shuffling. Just noise, exactly as expected from a random process. I’m looking for something I’ve measured in others that I cannot produce myself.
The effect I found in the 5+ sessions does not look like a learning pattern to me. The pattern didn’t build up over sessions or strengthen with practice. It seemed to be a characteristic of certain people rather than something anyone could develop with the repetition of a few sessions.
Before anyone gets into the main study, they go through two filters that I used in Experiment 4.
The first filter looks at the Hurst exponent delta. The Hurst exponent measures how much temporal structure exists within a random sequence. I compute it separately for your subject stream and your control stream, then take the difference. If that difference sits consistently outside what pure randomness would produce, it’s a signal that something about the temporal structure of your subject stream is different from what the hardware alone is generating.
The second filter takes that pattern and tries to destroy it. I shuffle your bits randomly 500 times and check whether the structure survives. If it does, it
wasn’t really a temporal pattern but just a quirk in the counts. If shuffling kills it, the structure was real. It lived in the sequence, in the timing. I also compare that to your PCS that is also shuffled 500 times.
Only people who pass both filters move into the main study.
What the Pre-Screen Involves
It’s done entirely online. Each session takes about 5 minutes. You focus your intent on a color, hold your intent and push a button. Eighty times per session.
I’m specifically looking for people who can commit to at least five sessions. These sessions can be spread over a few days. Single sessions produce too much
noise to see anything meaningful. The signal I found only became visible across multiple sessions.
What’s In It For You
If you make it through the prescreen and into the main study, you will get a full analysis of your sessions including your Hurst values, your delta
scores, how your temporal structure compared to the control stream and other subjects, and whether anything showed up that was genuinely in the timing or if it was all just noise.
Most people who have had unusual experiences have never had those experiences measured with any precision. This is a chance to find out whether
there is something real in your data or whether the effect turns out to be mundane with additional sessions. Either way it is worth knowing.
Beyond that, you would be contributing to a genuinely open scientific question. The methodology being developed here of using paired control streams to isolate a signal from hardware noise, is a new approach in this area of research. If there is an effect that is real and replicable, the way it gets established is one careful experiment at a time with curious people who were willing to show up and find out. That’s what you would be part of.
One important thing to say before you sign up. The prescreen filters are built specifically from the pattern I observed in a very small group of people from Experiment 4. That’s a narrow foundation. If you don’t pass the filters it does not mean you don’t have unusual abilities or that your experiences weren’t real. It means your data didn’t match this particular signature from this particular experiment. The filters could be wrong. The signature I found could turn out to be noise or specific to a certain type of ability. What I’m looking for is very specific and very preliminary and there are almost certainly people with genuine abilities who won’t show up in this particular measurement and people who pass the filters who turn out to be statistical flukes. All I’m doing is pulling on one thread I have and seeing where it leads.
If you are interested in taking the prescreening, CLICK HERE.
Oh, and please let me know if something doesn’t work for you. It’s just me monitoring all these connections and sometime things break without my awareness. You can reach me here. Thank you!
Leave a Reply