New study ’proves’ that we can see the future

[Sol Invictus]

November 22 2010 | Daily Mail

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/13245esp_inner.jpg

You may already know this, but psychic powers might really exist.
Research suggests that far from being a trick employed by fairground fortune tellers, many of us are blessed with the ability to see into the future.
Influencing events before they happen is also within our remit, the study by a respected psychologist found.

The publication of the results in a leading social science journal will make waves in the staid world of science, where terms like clairvoyance, telepathy and ESP are dirty words.

They will also spark a million conversations about the significance of everyday occurrences, such as knowing who is at the end of the phone before picking it up.

Daryl Bem, a physicist and part-time magician-turned-psychologist, set out to investigate psi, or parapsychology to you and me.

In one experiment, students were shown a list of words to memorise. They were later asked to recall as many as they could and finally they were given a random selection of the words to type out.

Not surprisingly, they were better at remembering some words than others. But spookily, these tended to be the words they would later be asked to type, suggesting a future event had affected their ability to remember.

In another experiment, the students were shown an image of two curtains on a computer screen and told one concealed an erotic picture. The students chose the curtain hiding the naughty picture slightly more often than could be explained away by chance, this week’s New Scientist reports.

Importantly, the position of the picture was randomly allotted by a computer which didn’t make its decision until after the volunteer chose one curtain or the other.

To believers in the paranormal, this suggests the students were actually influencing future events.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330596/Humans-psychic-powers-New-study-proves-future.html

[Liffrea]

I wouldn't mind seeing the actual study, papers use BS headlines to sell papers.


The proof of the pudding, says New Scientist, will be in whether other scientists can repeat the professor's success.

Consistently repeat, the research results in ESP are consitently inconsistent, which suggests chance and probability are more a factor than any genuine ESP. Mass all the research in ESP together, correlate the results, I bet there is nothing that probability wouldn’t explain.


Not surprisingly, they were better at remembering some words than others. But spookily, these tended to be the words they would later be asked to type, suggesting a future event had affected their ability to remember.

Or, more likely, there was expectation (consider language learning you expect to see a particular word in a sentence at a particular point and in context, nothing “spooky” about it) or there were possible unintentional hints and leads. A friend of mine is convinced by psychics, “how could they possibly know this”, simple, they use leading questions and trigger words/concepts.


The publication of the results in a leading social science journal will make waves in the staid world of science, where terms like clairvoyance, telepathy and ESP are dirty words.

Human brain “wiring” has many indivudal aspects, not helpful for supposed reading of thoughts.


The students chose the curtain hiding the naughty picture slightly more often than could be explained away by chance

How much more? How often was the test performed? Once, twice, three, four, five times? When was it performed? Morning, afternoon, 2am, under what conditions and where? Are you more psychic after a cup of tea or a nap? Is your ESP affected when your being shouted at or threatened?

Just two curtains, so the potential for a greater than 50/50 is high.....why not which of five windows has a naked woman behind them? Or which of one hundred doors has your wife in the nud waiting for the milkman? Genuine ESP shouldn't be affected should it by number.

[Matritensis]

I don't know about that,but prophetic dreams are an absolute reality.I've had two of them so far.

[Matritensis]

Is that a Taurus in your avatar picture,by the way?

[Sol Invictus]

Sig Sauer

[Matritensis]

Ah,much better! :)

[Curtis24]

I've known this for a long time - that's what Deja Vu is(I've also had prophetic dreams). The important question is, will the public pay attention to this study? Judging by the comments underneath the article, the answer is probably no.

[Brynhild]

I've known this for a long time - that's what Deja Vu is(I've also had prophetic dreams). The important question is, will the public pay attention to this study? Judging by the comments underneath the article, the answer is probably no.

To be honest, I couldn't be bothered with public opinion. I've had psychic predilections for years; moments of Deja Vu, premonitions and the like. There are always going to be sceptics who want a simple explanation to this sort of phenomena, but we still don't know the full potential of our minds.

[Curtis24]

To be honest, I couldn't be bothered with public opinion.

But as long as the public doesn't subscribe to it, nothing will be done abut it. that's the problem. we won't fulfill the potential of our minds.

[Brynhild]

But as long as the public doesn't subscribe to it, nothing will be done abut it. that's the problem. we won't fulfill the potential of our minds.

It's a valid point. However, I spoke from the perspective of the naysayers who want to view such things as being utterly wrong. They would still argue even if there is more evidence to support this. I don't care for their opinions either way, and I don't really care what these results yield. I'm not a puppet who is so easily manipulated by such findings. It will be along the likes of "Oh yeah, they've finally been able to prove what I've known all along".

[Moonbird]

To be honest, I couldn't be bothered with public opinion. I've had psychic predilections for years; moments of Deja Vu, premonitions and the like. There are always going to be sceptics who want a simple explanation to this sort of phenomena, but we still don't know the full potential of our minds.

These stuff are pretty hard to believe for someone like me, because I've never myself had any moments of Deja Vu, premonitions or anything like that. To me all this sounds like wishful thinking. I would however be happy to be wrong.

[Curtis24]

Anyway, I'm def. gonna have to find some parapsychology course I can take next semester.

[Germanicus]

Sig Sauer


9mm or 10mm?

[Psychonaut]

Question to those of you who believe that the future can be known: are you a determinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinist)? If not, how do you reconcile the knowability of the future with free will?

[Curtis24]

I don't... determinism is a correct philosophy, based on logic and my own experiences with prophetic dreams/deja vu.

[Sol Invictus]

.357 sig

[Loki]

These stuff are pretty hard to believe for someone like me, because I've never myself had any moments of Deja Vu, premonitions or anything like that. To me all this sounds like wishful thinking. I would however be happy to be wrong.

I'm equally sceptical about this. Whilst I myself had some dreams that had 'come true', and experienced Deja Vu's, it doesn't prove anything. Humans can't know the future, it's illogical and impossible. They can anticipate future events, of course. But that is guesswork (that can sometimes be accurate). I don't believe in hocus pocus stuff, sorry.

[Grumpy Cat]

I saw this coming... :D

[Curtis24]

what do you mean?

[Aemma]

what do you mean?

You're kidding me, right Curtis? ;) Think about it! :D

[Brynhild]

Question to those of you who believe that the future can be known: are you a determinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinist)? If not, how do you reconcile the knowability of the future with free will?

It doesn't interfere with free will. Seeing something doesn't equate with alteriing another's course. However, there's nothing wrong with altering your own outcome if it doesn't interfere with anyone else. You should know something about this already, given your magical history.


I'm equally sceptical about this. Whilst I myself had some dreams that had 'come true', and experienced Deja Vu's, it doesn't prove anything. Humans can't know the future, it's illogical and impossible. They can anticipate future events, of course. But that is guesswork (that can sometimes be accurate). I don't believe in hocus pocus stuff, sorry.

Fortunately, I'm thicker skinned, as I've lived among sceptics for years. It's like telling somebody you can't do that. I simply won't listen, given that I've had too many experiences of this nature to be persuaded otherwise.


I saw this coming... :D


what do you mean?


You're kidding me, right Curtis? ;) Think about it! :D

I think I've already pointed this out. :D


There are always going to be sceptics who want a simple explanation to this sort of phenomena, but we still don't know the full potential of our minds.

[Breedingvariety]

Question to those of you who believe that the future can be known: are you a determinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinist)?
I don't believe the future can be fully known, but I do believe it is hidden deeply in our subconscious and dreams.

If not, how do you reconcile the knowability of the future with free will?
Determinism is in the phenomenon reality, while free will is in the nuomenon reality.

I'm equally sceptical about this. Whilst I myself had some dreams that had 'come true', and experienced Deja Vu's, it doesn't prove anything. Humans can't know the future, it's illogical and impossible. They can anticipate future events, of course. But that is guesswork (that can sometimes be accurate). I don't believe in hocus pocus stuff, sorry.
If the world is one entity with many changing parts, then it is conceivable parts could get information from far beyond themselves, whether it be in space or time.

[Psychonaut]

It doesn't interfere with free will. Seeing something doesn't equate with alteriing another's course. However, there's nothing wrong with altering your own outcome if it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

It seems, however, that the only way branching futures are possible is if the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation). I think that's how Pete Carroll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Carroll) explains divination too, though.


You should know something about this already, given your magical history.

You might think so, but divination was one thing I never held much stock in. It's inherently nonrepeatable nature clashes too strongly with my scientific inclinations. But then again, that's a big part of why I'm less of a magician and more of a psychonaut/hieronaut. :shrug:


Determinism is in the phenomenon reality, while free will is in the nuomenon reality.

That doesn't make much sense, dude. How exactly does a phenomenal world of determinism issuing forth from a noumenal world of novelty jibe with precognition? That's like saying I, as a Ding an sich, have total freedom and am undetermined, but to outside observers it appears as if my life-course is completely determined and my actions can be predicted with certitude. If the Ding an sich is free, how then can its actions be foretold through then phenomenal lens?

Your dichotomy would make more sense if it were switched around with the noumenal self being determined, but the phenomenal self (due to systemic complexity) having the appearance of free will.

[Breedingvariety]

That doesn't make much sense, dude. How exactly does a phenomenal world of determinism issuing forth from a noumenal world of novelty jibe with precognition? That's like saying I, as a Ding an sich, have total freedom and am undetermined, but to outside observers it appears as if my life-course is completely determined and my actions can be predicted with certitude.
Determinism doesn't imply ability to predict. It implies causality, which inevitably leads to necessary consequences, even if we may not be able to falsify causes. The possibility to predict comes from figuring apparent causality between events. So the concept of determinism is rather logical, then practical.

If the Ding an sich is free, how then can its actions be foretold through then phenomenal lens?
Foretelling through the phenomenal lens is apparent, because the phenomenon is appearance itself.

Even if you had Godly powers to predict everything, it would not negate free will, because The Will would want and will to do what is predicted. So apparent determinism in phenomenon would not negate internal free will of nuomenon.

Your dichotomy would make more sense if it were switched around with the noumenal self being determined, but the phenomenal self (due to systemic complexity) having the appearance of free will.
Causality and therefore determinism are not attributes of nuomenon. In phenomenon reality it is possible to falsify and apparently predict most simplest causalities. More complex causalities we can't predict. But our inability to predict or thinking we can't predict is not a sign of free will in phenomenon. It is logically impossible for phenomenon to have attributes of both free will and determinism. After all phenomenon is just appearance- Veil of Maya.

[Heretik]

If prophetic dreams and visions are, in fact, possible / true, well, then I'm screwed. :(

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Brynhild
They would still argue even if there is more evidence to support this.

No they wouldn’t. It is simple you either accept the method of falsibility….or you believe what you wish to believe. ESP (like anything) if you want to treat it in a rational manner has to stand up to scrutiny and pass any test that can be devised to prove it wrong. That’s science, any scientist who knows his job will devise ways to prove that he is wrong.

ESP has failed to do this; hence, there is no reason to accept it as fact.


Originally Posted by Vonnita
because I've never myself had any moments of Deja Vu, premonitions or anything like that.

I’ve had deja-vu quite strong in my life, I’ve even seen ghosts.

I know enough about how the human mind works, how we correlate information from our sense, and how our minds are as much (if not more so) active seekers than passive receivers to believe it is all simply in my head. Humans are pattern seekers, we see patterns even where they don’t exist.


Originally Posted by Breedingvariety
The possibility to predict comes from figuring apparent causality between events. So the concept of determinism is rather logical

Chaos makes it virtually impossible to generate an accurate prediction, throw in complexity and you can’t even be certain the rules will remain the same never mind the result.

To predict the future state of a human being would involve writing down the wave function of every subatomic particle in the human……..good luck with that one.


It is logically impossible for phenomenon to have attributes of both free will and determinism.

True, but, interestingly, the laws of physics offer the possibility of an illusion of free will via chaos theory and emergence. We feel like we are making choices but, in fact, we are making judgements.


Originally Posted by Psychonaut
It seems, however, that the only way branching futures are possible is if the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true.

The problem is that you can’t write the quantum wave pattern for every subatomic particle in a human body, so how would you manage to go one further and predict the change in a particle that would lead to an alternate set of scenarios? It makes sense mathematically, it is even a valid interpretation of an experiment, but then saying God did it is a valid interpretation of an experiment when you get right down to it, it isn’t proof.

[Foxy]

I don't know about that,but prophetic dreams are an absolute reality.I've had two of them so far.

I agree with him becouse I had various too.
I would be interested to know what Matritensis' profetic dreams concerne.

[Loki]

Deja-vu is medically explainable, caused by unbalanced brain chemistry. It is in effect a partial brain seizure. Or, it could be the "aura" part of an oncoming tonic-clonic seizure.

[Peasant]

My brain must be well messed up then. :D

[Curtis24]

I have also had prophetic dreams that turned out to be Deja Vu.

This stuff is real.

Unfortunately, its not studied nearly enough...

[Brynhild]

It seems, however, that the only way branching futures are possible is if the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation). I think that's how Pete Carroll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Carroll) explains divination too, though.

And I would be the last to dismiss such possibilities, since I'm not adverse to having an open mind.


You might think so, but divination was one thing I never held much stock in. It's inherently nonrepeatable nature clashes too strongly with my scientific inclinations. But then again, that's a big part of why I'm less of a magician and more of a psychonaut/hieronaut. :shrug:

It isn't about my thinking so, it is about my knowing so. I don't base my existence on having to prove everything that I do. If it feels right, I do it. If it doesn't, well then, I don't. Simple really.

Divination isn't the only branch of magic, as there are many aspects of that practice. There is also shape-shifting, exploring the netherworlds as a psychopomp, healing etc. I don't have to elaborate on this as there is plenty of it mentioned in the Heathen texts. As a practicing Shaman, it's not only about divining one's future so the use of the word divination as a predictive tool alone is rather a misnomer.

[Psychonaut]

Determinism doesn't imply ability to predict.

But it does. If all causation is regular, with no chaotic or novel elements, then, given sufficient data, any future event could be predicted. This was, within physics, a virtual truism until the quantum revolution threw tychism back into the mix.


Even if you had Godly powers to predict everything, it would not negate free will, because The Will would want and will to do what is predicted. So apparent determinism in phenomenon would not negate internal free will of nuomenon.

I think you've still got part of this backwards, the ability to predict events doesn't negate free will. It's not as if there is some Iron Will that is being tested against someone's powers of prediction in a contest. Rather, if events can be predicted then there is no possibility for the free will to exist in the first place, for absolute predictability necessitates that there is no possibility of a change in the course of events that lead to the predicted future. If there were such a chance, either via novelty or tychism, then absolute predictability fails.

As mentioned previously, absolute predictability has already demonstrably failed in the micro world due to quantum fluctuations that can only be predicted in terms of probabilities, but it has yet to be demonstrated whether predictability fails on a macro scale due to mental structures being novel.


It is logically impossible for phenomenon to have attributes of both free will and determinism.

Many would argue this point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism). In the fate/free will debate compatibilism is the most widely held (http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2010/11/15/PhilPapers-Philosophy-Survey-Updated.aspx) position, with minorities finding themselves fully on the fate or free will side.


The problem is that you can’t write the quantum wave pattern for every subatomic particle in a human body, so how would you manage to go one further and predict the change in a particle that would lead to an alternate set of scenarios? It makes sense mathematically, it is even a valid interpretation of an experiment, but then saying God did it is a valid interpretation of an experiment when you get right down to it, it isn’t proof.

Yeah, I don't buy into it; I'm just saying that it's an option.

[Loki]

I obviously wish this was possible. But if it was, it seems that knowledge is given involuntarily, and that one cannot find it at will. Otherwise we'd all be millionaires and the bookies bankrupt. So who/what decides to give us glimpses into the future? A scientific anomaly? A god?

[Grumpy Cat]

I obviously wish this was possible. But if it was, it seems that knowledge is given involuntarily, and that one cannot find it at will. Otherwise we'd all be millionaires and the bookies bankrupt. So who/what decides to give us glimpses into the future? A scientific anomaly? A god?

I don't think they mean detailed knowledge of the future, just something vague like "if I do x, then y will happen". So more insight than anything.

[Eldritch]

I wouldn't mind seeing the actual study, papers use BS headlines to sell papers.


http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

One of the sources for the study is Julian Barbour's End of Time: The next Revolution in Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_(book)), which I have not read, but which has been described to me by people whose judgment I trust as mysticist horseshit.

[Comte Arnau]

Well, I have an 'ability' that I hardly ever explain IRL because to look like a freak we have the Internet already. But I'd love that it could be scientifically explained, so that I could understand why it happens. It basically consists of knowing I'll come across a specific acquaintance, usually in the streets, during the next hours of the day, without any external clue hinting on a possibility of that meeting taking place. First I thought it was mere coincidence. When the number of times it happened was just too high for it being coincidental, more particularly when it happened with acquaintances that didn't live in the same town, I got a bit uncomfortable with this. Now I just simply don't give a damn, when it happens I laugh inside, but I'd certainly like to find something that could explain this scientifically, with arguments other than big empathy and all that bullshit.

[Loddfafner]

I have attributed one moment of deja vue to a specifically-remembered dream. The dream was about scrambling up the side of a mountain and choosing between a route that looked safer because the bushes provided a sense of security but the incline was steeper, and a route that had no psychological supports but was probably safer to scramble up. I chose the route with the bushes. It seemed an obvious symbolic dream. Later, I was scrambling up a cliff in British Columbia and realized that the exact arrangement of the inclines and the shrubbery was exactly as it was in the dream. Nothing conclusive, but enough for me to give the benefit of a doubt to such accounts.

Other instances of deja vue felt like they were moments I had dreamed but none that I could be so sure about. These moments tend to be completely random. They are not pivotal events. I tend to panic and wonder if this means I am headed for some doom, and then recall a friend's suggestion that they mean that I am on the right track.

[Breedingvariety]

But it does. If all causation is regular, with no chaotic or novel elements, then, given sufficient data, any future event could be predicted. This was, within physics, a virtual truism until the quantum revolution threw tychism back into the mix.
What is sufficient data?

Sufficient data for closed system means all data of the system. But as there is no such thing as closed system and very observer himself is within the system, having observed the system (if being in the mix of it could be called observation) for tick in eternity, then there is no such thing as sufficient data for the scope of concept "determinism" entails.

I think you've still got part of this backwards, the ability to predict events doesn't negate free will. It's not as if there is some Iron Will that is being tested against someone's powers of prediction in a contest. Rather, if events can be predicted then there is no possibility for the free will to exist in the first place, for absolute predictability necessitates that there is no possibility of a change in the course of events that lead to the predicted future. If there were such a chance, either via novelty or tychism, then absolute predictability fails.
Only Absolute mind could fathom absolute predictability. Limited mind can't.

Your definition of free will is ability to change a course. But if there is a course, then it means it is predetermined. So you can't change it. But if you can change it, then there was no course.

My definition of free will is for will to do what it wills. Will itself is primal, so nothing else can cause it. Kind of like the God.

As mentioned previously, absolute predictability has already demonstrably failed in the micro world due to quantum fluctuations that can only be predicted in terms of probabilities, but it has yet to be demonstrated whether predictability fails on a macro scale due to mental structures being novel.
You confuse physics and science with philosophy. Science can be whatever philosophy says it is. If science dictates philosophy, then all I can say is: "blinded by science".

[Talvi]

When I was in the first grade.. about 7 years old, I saw a dream, and then next day in school it happened. :D

[Psychonaut]

What is sufficient data?

Sufficient data for closed system means all data of the system. But as there is no such thing as closed system and very observer himself is within the system, having observed the system (if being in the mix of it could be called observation) for tick in eternity, then there is no such thing as sufficient data for the scope of concept "determinism" entails.

But the system is closed. The observer being a part of the system has nothing to do with it being open. No currently accepted cosmological model I'm aware of calls for an infinite amount of matter/energy being present in the universe. The shape of spacetime may be, if Einstein was right, unbound, but it is surely finite. A finite system is a closed system, capable of analysis given a sufficiently complex mind.


Only Absolute mind could fathom absolute predictability. Limited mind can't.

Well, hello there Herr Hegel. :wave:


Your definition of free will is ability to change a course. But if there is a course, then it means it is predetermined. So you can't change it. But if you can change it, then there was no course.

That is a linguistic rather than conceptual critique. However, a more non-biased definition of free will might be the ability for each actual occasion (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/4702/actual-occasion) to act with a degree of novelty in response to the series of events with culminates in its current situation.


You confuse physics and science with philosophy. Science can be whatever philosophy says it is. If science dictates philosophy, then all I can say is: "blinded by science".

I don't understand what you mean here.

[Breedingvariety]

But the system is closed. The observer being a part of the system has nothing to do with it being open. No currently accepted cosmological model I'm aware of calls for an infinite amount of matter/energy being present in the universe. The shape of spacetime may be, if Einstein was right, unbound, but it is surely finite. A finite system is a closed system, capable of analysis given a sufficiently complex mind.
If observer is part of a system he observes, then he sees the system in relative terms to his position within the system. So his knowledge about the system based on observations will also be relative.

While a systems could reasonably be called closed for purposes of empirical research and science, no system actually is closed (shielded from outside influences) as all constructed systems exist within infinite system (God, Will, Universe) from which these systems arise or by which these systems are caused (in not literal sense of the word).

Science presupposes determinism. Determinism is necessary assumption of science. Scientists search for empirical causes which they assume exist. So science is consequence of and can't prove determinism.

Science accepting free will would be the same as saying it can't falsify causes and that it has nothing in some field. But that is so unlike science. Take cosmology for example. It is pretend science, because no experiments on the universe can be done and it is mathematical models and not cause and effect demonstrations that it offers. But still there is causation within these models on paper, not in experiment.

Science itself can't provide philosophical answers. Cosmology can't even provide useful falsifications.

From Spinoza Ethics:

PROP. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite.
Proof.--There can be only one substance with an identical attribute, and existence follows from its nature (Prop. vii.); its nature, therefore, involves existence, either as finite or infinite. It does not exist as finite, for (by Def. ii.) it would then be limited by something else of the same kind, which would also necessarily exist (Prop. vii.); and there would be two substances with an identical attribute, which is absurd (Prop. v.). It therefore exists as infinite. Q.E.D.
Finite means limited and there's nothing limiting Universe, so it is infinite. That is if applying space and time to Universe. More accurately would be to say space/time and matter can't be applied to Universe, because they are representations of reality in the mind and not parameters within which reality exist.

Well, hello there Herr Hegel. :wave:
Although I don't believe absolute mind exist.

I don't understand what you mean here.
Assumptions, purpose and use of science are determined by philosophy. Science is theoretical falsifications validated by experimentation. Science doesn't give values and doesn't answer philosophical questions. Media that says otherwise, does so for political brainwashing reasons. They want to blind masses with science. Often it's not even real science. But even real science is not values providing.

[Psychonaut]

If observer is part of a system he observes, then he sees the system in relative terms to his position within the system. So his knowledge about the system based on observations will also be relative.

That observation is inherently perspectival doesn't mean that the totality of the system cannot be observed, in theory, by a sufficiently advanced observer.


While a systems could reasonably be called closed for purposes of empirical research and science, no system actually is closed (shielded from outside influences) as all constructed systems exist within infinite system (God, Will, Universe) from which these systems arise or by which these systems are caused (in not literal sense of the word).

Your belief in the infinitude of the universe seems to be rooted in an a priori.


Science presupposes determinism. Determinism is necessary assumption of science. Scientists search for empirical causes which they assume exist. So science is consequence of and can't prove determinism.

No. It presumes causality. Quantum mechanics has already demonstrated that there are non-determined variables in the sub-atomic realm.

[quote=Spinoza]Finite means limited and there's nothing limiting Universe, so it is infinite. That is if applying space and time to Universe. More accurately would be to say space/time and matter can't be applied to Universe, because they are representations of reality in the mind and not parameters within which reality exist.

Spinoza is out of touch with contemporary science. It's all well and good to say "I think that the universe is infinite," but if the science conflicts with your philosophy, it's the latter that must be rethought. The universe certainly appears to be finite in the amount of stuff there is. This is a limit, because of the mass/energy correlation. Limited mass means limited energy, which means limited activity.


Although I don't believe absolute mind exist.

Well, thank goodness for that!

[Vanilla Wafer]

I think that I definitely have some sort of psychic ability. I am able to predict almost exact results of horseraces, football games, baseball games, the weather, and other things like that. I can't feel like I'm under pressure though. When I am under pressure, the prediction is less accurate. I have to make the assumption naturally in my mind without thinking I am trying to predict the future.

[Curtis24]

Relaxation seems to help me as well. The big thing with me is synchronicity - bumping into a particular person over and over again, even in strange and far-away locations.

[ElWolverine]

I have prenomitory dreams...i hate it, I dont know if is coincidence or some real, but i hate to dream when someone dead, cuz that person dead.

[Quasimodem]

Here we have a classic example of what Richard Feynman called Cargo Cult Science (http://www.lhup.edu/%7EDSIMANEK/cargocul.htm).


Now the study has been replicated. Three academics – Stuart Richie, Chris French, and Richard Wiseman – have re-run three of these backwards experiments, just as Bem ran them, and found no evidence of precognition. They submitted their negative results to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which published Bem's paper last year, and the journal rejected their paper out of hand. We never, they explained, publish studies that replicate other work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/23/ben-goldacre-bad-science

Some excerpts from the Feynman lecture that really tell it like it is:



We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.


Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A. I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control. She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.




Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?



After more than 30 years, they're still playing the same game.