AI PANEL SCORE:

QSD Kid 8; Classical Science 0

It is quite well-known that many of our leading scientists and intellectuals insist that all so-called perceptions of so-called meaningful synchronistic patterns are just constructs of the human imagination. 

So, what if this interpretation is actually wrong?

What if this belief is so wrong that one can defeat it using the most elementary science and 5th-grade math!?

Thoroughly, repeatedly, and in full public view? 

We ask because this is AI’s unanimous conclusion about the case studies below. We call our data QSD or Quantitative Synchronicity Data.  

Time Clock: Total Days Without Refutation So Far

What is ‘Null Hypothesis’ Checkmate? 

AI also says QSD is “post-classical” data because the datasets represent hard evidence that classical science can’t explain nor explain away. As such, the case studies below will require a new paradigm to explain their existence, owing to how absurd it is – scienfifically – to presume that the datasets must be random. 

All of the data we introduce must meet three criteria: they must be significant to groups, meaningful in objective-demonstrable fashion, and improbable to degrees that can be safely and sufficiently determined. As noted, we strive to only introduce data that is very easily sourced and therefore authentic beyond all reasonable doubt.

In order to earn the “Certified QSD” label, multiple AI systems must unanimously agree that the dataset is testable, confined to significant data and meaning, and will prove to be virtually impossible to reproduce under controlled testing conditions.  The test is very simple really, since the data we reproduce is extremely testabl.  In our flagship essay we defeated chance three times by focusing on “game-winning scores. See QSD 1, 2 and 3: Three Datasets That Classical Science Cannot Explain.

This research is made freely available for two reasons. 

First, if AI’s conclusions about this data can be falsified, we firmly believe that this should happen. Making this data available for free provides the best chance of finding true falsification, if that can be done. I will happily post such a refutation on this landing page. Until you see such a thing, know that this is yet to occur. 

Second, the same ethos obliges me to inform readers of the current score, making this an ongoing ‘live’ experiment that refreshes every day. The clock is set to August 4, 2025, by the way. That’s when I loaded the flagship SSRN paper in this series and called ‘checkmate’ (three times). Since then the QSD results have remained unrefuted – to the best of my knowledge.

So, this is serious business. You won’t find any ‘swamp gas’ here. No redacted files, no rumors, no innuendo, and no possibly doctored videos. We seek to only introduce publicly available data that is authentic beyond all reasonable doubt. All of our AI transcripts are embedded in the papers. This way, the reader is fully empowered to reach his or her own conclusions independently.

The main issue is that AI panels consistently agree that the datasets below resoundingly defeat the random (null) assumption at any reasonable probability statistical threshold. This being the case, until proven otherwise, these datasets scientifically affirm the existence of synchronicity. But are AI’s conclusions correct?

SSRN

Although we introduced these case studies to the public earlier, the Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN, est. 1994) officially introduced our “open question” about QSD to the academic community in early August of 2025.

We don’t publish anything here unless multiple AI agree with what we are saying. Then, at SSRN, academic editors review papers to see if they meet basic academic quality-control standards. Other editors sometimes review papers at the next level, deciding they are worthy of inclusion in mailing lists.

AI says the SSRN mailing typically includes hundreds of readers or more. Plenty of skeptics, I would hope. All of the papers listed below have been distributed. AI says that ‘distributed’ paper titles get seen by dozens to hundreds of SSRN readers, providing ample opportunity for early falsification and ‘dark social’ sharing of the freely downloaded PDFs. 

These are my early results at SSRN where I have given only my name, because I want the focus on my data. I began with a ‘flagship’ paper (at bottom) that provided three different and independent examples of QSD: one was of noted mathematical significance, another was rich in secular meaning, a third was religious.

I began with the so-called Tim Tebow “John 3:16” case study knowing that some people would love to shoot down any dataset with such a brazenly religious signature if they could…

And good on them if they can. That would be in the greatest public interest, which is why I say this to everyone:

Go ahead, make your day. 

So far, crickets. You all should know that, because this experiment is unlike in chess in one significant respect.

In normal chess the loser must resign when he sees checkmate, or he could go in denial and get kicked out of a tournament for taking too long. This is why we’ve installed a time clock above and why I’ve chosen edgy prose here, frankly: because some people might prefer that the public not know about this information.

Our clock harnesses that silence, reminding others of the skeptics’ ongoing inability to reproduce this data at least 1 in 20 times (P< .05). It lends this landing page a refreshing, organic quality, as it updates daily in its author’s absence.

The PDFs below are best suited for desktop screens. For cell phones, it’s better to use a PDF viewer, etc. “muPDF” is excellent for cellphones and has no ads, no credit cards etc. :https://play.google.com/store/games

1. QSD-1,2,3: Our Flagship Paper: QSD 1, 2 and 3: Three Datasets That Classical Science Cannot Explain. Our first published examples of QSD. The purpose here is to scientifically confirm synchronicity through three independent cases. ESSAY  PAPER

2. QSD-1 Where John 316 Meets P05 Meaningful NFL Patterns Defeat Chance in the Scientific Arena ESSAY PAPER   A follow-up to QSD-123. This paper reveals the depth of QSD-1, the Tim Tebow case study.  It provides a sample of what we shall continue to overlook as long as we “believe” that all sync patterns are based on misperception. 

3. QSD-4: The Great American Super Bowl Sequence: QSD-4 provides a second example of what we overlook”: 30 Straight Super Bowls Form a Pattern that is Orders of Magnitude Rarer than the Age of the Universe. This case study climaxes with QSD-2.   ESSAY   PAPER 

4. QSD-50 : The USA’s 1980 Statistical Miracle On Ice February 9, 2026.  ESSAY   PAPER

5. QSD-67 : Ice Hockey at the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics  February 16, 2026.  ESSAY PAPER

ESSAYS

QSD: An Emerging Post-Classical Category? A.I. Panel Review     

QSD-1: How Nearly 100 Americans Got Juked by the Read Option in 2012