New study ’proves’ that we can see the future

[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.

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.

[QUOTE=Breedingvariety;353646]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.

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.

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/commentisf...re-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.