Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects

Experiments suggesting the existence of mind-matter interaction (MMI) effects on the outputs of random number generators (RNG) have been criticized based on the questionable assumption that MMI effects operate uniformly on each random bit, independent of the number of bits used per sample, the rate at which bits are generated, or the psychological conditions of the task. This ''influence-per-bit'' assumption invariably leads to the conclusion that the significant cumulative results of these experiments, as demonstrated in meta-analyses, are due not to MMI effects but rather to publication biases. We discuss why this assumption is doubtful, and why publication bias and other common criticisms of MMI-RNG studies are implausible.