Dean Radin: The Global Consciousness Project

And all fundamental physics laws are time symmetric. That means that they operate exactly the same, but time flowing in reverse.

I dont understand. Pls explain

Fail.

If you flip a coin 1,000,000 times, and each time it lands on heads, that is a common sense decrease in randomness.

I would think any average scientist would look for something that.

Common sense definition? That means nothing. There must be words and a logical definition before you can make your case to the scientific community.
Look up statistical hypothesis testing, and restructure your inquiry to follow its guidelines. Once you follow those rules correctly, you can perform experiments like this and have a place within science. As far as I'm concerned they have not defined their criteria correctly and I'm doing what I should be doing in question that.

webbot project

a project who predict the future

Using linguistics from the internet

You will be astonished what is going to happen in the future!!!

WEBBOT ON YOUTUBE!!

I don't think randomness can be explained with the current scientific sterotypes and normes.
The classical scientific method is to fond of it's numbers and scales to be able to explain things that exceed these culturally set "rules".
Dean Radin is one of few visionaries who seeks to ascend beyond this trivial dabbling.

By definition random is random. Scientific method is a well established technique for observing phenomena dating back over 1000 years. You cannot talk about proof without first analyzing data. You might as well consider this a religion as it cannot be approached scientifically. That is in no way a degradation of religion, all it means is that you cannot approach them the same way.

How can one begin to talk about proof of causality without proper data?

in one of his other interviews, he explains how all of his random number generator systems are completely shielded from any kind of electronic - electromagnatic - frequency type of interferences

Alright, i have performed one iteration of 100 trials, remaining unbiased, and following what little instruction the video established. The random device "followed my will" 52 times, a number just above the expected 50. we all agree that 52 is greater than 50. but not by a statistically significant amount. To be statistically significant at the 5% range, we should be greater than 52.5, we are not. i invite you to try the experiment yourself, but dont waste your time one it.