I think I get what you’re saying. Feel free to correct me:
Chance is a part of precognition. That is, chance exists because of (and is a part of) precognition. However, we see it in reverse - that supposed “precognition” is really just luck, chance, etc.
As I said, we see it in reverse. But that’s because our perception is influenced by time, and if you realize this influence, you’ll be able to see that the reverse is true.
In other words, chance is just a touch of precognition; “precognition” is not just a touch of chance.
I can kind of buy this. After all, it’s not too crazy to say that if everything abides by certain rules, then all events follow naturally from them (e.g., how I can predict to some accuracy the path of a projectile).
But, that opens another question: if indeed the universe works this way, how do these discrete packets of information traverse time? And why are they understandable?
I got a little ahead of myself in the last part of my post.
First, I was giving my interpretation of devilsknew’s words, and what I got from his/her post was:
“Chance is just a fleeting case of precognition. However, everyone is seeing it in reverse - that precognition is just a lucky guess - but this is incorrect.”
(I hope that’s clear and succint enough. Again, that’s just what I’m getting from devilsknew’s post; he/she is welcome to correct my interpretation.)
I personally don’t buy it, which is why I asked my questions.
First, I granted that the idea of precognition isn’t totally crazy because there are cases where we can “look into the future,” so to speak. That’s what the projectile comment was about. Because a projectile’s path is governed by the rules of physics, one can “look into the future” and see where the projectile will go.
Now take that idea - that if you know the rules then you can (accurately) predict what will occur- and extend it to everything and every situation. Then, maybe, you could predict the future.
Of course, that’s a HUGE maybe. But for the sake of argument, say it’s true - then you’ve got to explain how the future reveals itself - discretely, mind you - to a select few people, at particular times, and is somehow interpretable. That’s what I’d like to know.
Thank you, Tony J for explaining in part, what I am finding quite difficult to explain. I admit I don’t have the necessary scientific background nor technical terminology to make this entirely clear. You seem to understand my “theory” quite simply and clearly. I am sometimes prone to an effluence of words from the overactive language centers of my brain, so it could get a bit murky. It appears that paradox is inherently diificult and confusing to express with language.
I haven’t carried this idea about precognition with me for very long but it has been preoccupying me since I first took a taste of this damned apple. I am still gelling ideas and very careful about what I could or couldn’t say about it. It is just a theoretical framework. I am fairly sure that it isn’t entirely original (Although I am not quite sure. I haven’t seen exaCTLY THIS PROPOSITION
WTF?!! My computer decided to post that last one automatically before I was finished. I could’ve hit the enter accidentally, maybe:
Thank you, Tony J for explaining in part, what I am finding quite difficult to explain. I admit I don’t have the necessary scientific background nor technical terminology to make this entirely clear. You seem to understand my “theory” quite simply and clearly. I am sometimes prone to an effluence of words from the overactive language centers of my brain, so it could get a bit murky. It appears that paradox is inherently diificult and confusing to express with language.
I haven’t carried this idea about precognition with me for very long but it has been preoccupying me since I first took a taste of this damned apple. I am still gelling ideas and very careful about what I could or couldn’t say about it. It is just a theoretical framework. I am fairly sure that it isn’t entirely original (Although I am not quite sure. I haven’t seen this exact proposition anywhere.) .
I am exploring the idea of precognition, outside of “hokey” or “new age” and “pseudoscience”. These are the very problems that have kept psychic ability from serious consideration and research, as evidenced by many of the highly prejudiced posts here. Humanity has several ideas or characterizations of precognition and there are millions of anecdotal cases- luck, deja vu, psychic ability, premonition, prediction, prophecy, etc. It is very likely that many or all of us have experienced precognition many times within our life. I believe that precognition is a state within a time anomaly. I don’t fully understand how or why or even very much about its nature. It appears to exist, though, when you apply some logical and critical thought.
That probably is what devilsknew is trying to say. I asked him some time back about the obvious implications:
since lottery winners are randomly different each week, does his ‘precognitive ability’ jump about randomly too?
when there is no lottery winner, is the ‘precognitive ability’ on holiday?
does a syndicate buying every number (and thus winning the lottery) show ‘precognitive ability’?
He has never replied. Of course it is impossible to distinguish this ‘precognitive ability’ from chance.
These is an entirely different case. We have scientific theories and evidence of projectiles (and eclipses etc), which allow us to make successfully predictions. It’s nothing to do with the paranormal!
(We also have the mathematical theory of randomness, which completely explains the behaviour of lottery wins.)
The point is that if you load and aim the same model of gun, each projectile will behave in the same way. They will all satisfy the scientific model.
All lottery entrants do not win. The same people do not win again. There is no pattern; there is no prediction; there is no evidence of any mechanism.
If you can’t explain it, how do you know you understand it yourself?
More unsupported claims from you.
Which posts are ‘highly prejudiced’?
Which ‘problems’ keep psychic abilities from being investigated?
What do you mean by ‘humanity’? All 6 billion of us have the same ideas?
As for millions of anecdotal cases - none of these are evidence.
(If I tell you that I precisely once felt nervous entering my house, does that prove the existence of ghosts?)
Do you know about the unreliability of eye-witness evidence, for example?
Cite?
How likely?
How many times?
What evidence do you have to support any of this?
I might believe I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage (if I had a garage). I don’t have any evidence for it, but let’s apply your ‘logic’:
The invisible pink unicorn in my garage appears to exist, though, when you apply some logical and critical thought.
Well there you have it - proof of the paranormal. :rolleyes: Better feed my unicorn, then.
What is your proof of precognition?
What evidence do you have?
OK, devilsknew, is this what you are saying? That there is no chance, that everytime there is a lottery winner, it was precognition at work?
If that’s it, then I have some questions. Let’s say that there are 20 million lottery ticket holders, and only one person wins. You ascribe his win to precognition. But with 20 million tickets sold, I would expect that there would be one correct ticket due to chance alone, so this precognition machine must prevent all those losers-to-be from buying the correct ticket. Right? So the precog machine knows the answer in advance, then chooses one person to be the winner, but tells the other 19,999,999 people to buy the wrong numbers.
It seems that getting on the “good side” of your precog machine would be a really good thing to do.
CurtC,
No, I am saying that the product of chance, the reality of a winning lottery number is cause for precognition. But yes, it was precognition at work, or perhaps more accurately the temporal state of precognition was qualified. So, in this sense every win is end cause but prior effect. It defies causality, but it seems that this has already been done with a faster than c light and is observed sometimes in the quantum universe.
Again, it is a state that is also governed by chance or maybe there are certain conditions, as of yet unknown, that cause this state or must be met for this state to occur. There is a potential that only one, none, or many could win in 20 million. It doesn’t prevent other lottery winners, it just means that some enter into the timeline of the time anomaly that is the state of precognition and win, others don’t.
Within the state of precognition there is “no chance”- at least as far as the transmission of a future event to the past. The knowledge of the unknown future event is a certainty.
as I have repeatedly pointed out, you are posting to an Internet discussion board, under the forum title ‘Great Debates’.
Yet you have never answered any of my questions.
Here they are again:
Your theory is that all lottery wins are proof of precognition of the winning numbers.
Since lottery winners are randomly different each week, does your ‘precognitive ability’ jump about randomly too?
When there is no lottery winner, is the ‘precognitive ability’ on holiday?
Does a syndicate buying every lottery number (and thus automatically winning the lottery) show ‘precognitive ability’?
If someone chooses the same numbers every week, and eventually wins once after 10 years of trying, is this evidence of your ‘precognitive ability’? Are you saying that the ‘precognitive ability’ can predict 10 years into the future?
And here are another two:
If several people win the lottery, did the ‘precognitive ability’ strike all of them simultaneously?
Several hundred years ago, Pascal founded the mathematical theory of probability. Lotteries behave exactly as predicted by the maths derived from this probability theory. How can you distinguish between probability (which is used to predict all sorts of things) and your theory (which appears to have no predictive value at all)?
What do you mean by this?
Is a lottery win the cause of precognition?
Did you mean ‘the reality of a winning lottery number is evidence for precognition’?
And what would an ‘unqualified temporal state of precognition’ be exactly?
You have evidence of light travelling faster than the speed of light?
Cite?
Do you know what a ‘quantum universe’ means? How does reverse time travel and the negation of causality fit into it?
I keep hearing the argument that lottery winnings are no more common than chance alone would dictate. I am not disputing this claim, however in the interests of approaching the subject from all sides I must ask if it has been demonstrated to be a fact.
That aside, it sounds to me like devilsknew is taking time’s arrow out of the equation and rendering precognition and chance indistinguishable. Since AFAIK time’s arrow has never been shown to exist on the quantum level, and since nobody answered my question on whether the same random processes apply to subatomic particles and lottery drawings, it seems to me that there’s a valid theory here (even if I have only a vague idea what it is).
I am stuck on the above sentence which really translates to: The knowledge of the unknowlegable future event is a certainty. How can you have knowledge of something that is not knowable?
What? cityboy916, have you any idea how it would look if there were more winners than chance alone suggested? There would be questions asked in the house! Auditors would be called in. Heads would roll.
Anyway, the laws of probability are so well understood and long-standing, it seems that anyone who doubts this fact should be providing the citation, but 'cause you asked so nicely, I’ll have a look around.
One thing that I do know (and had been discussed here with cites) is that the proportion of winners of the UK’s lottery that win with “lucky-dip” tickets (with numbers automatically and “randomly” chosen by the lottery ticket-machine) is in exact proportion to the number sold (i.e. proportionately many people win when selecting their own numbers as when choosing “lucky-dip”).
It it weren’t, casinos would risk going broke, but instead, they are very reliable and profitable investments. When was the last time you heard of a state lottery in financial trouble because of too many winners? Where have you seen a casino that couldn’t afford to have a nice carpet and give away free drinks, pleading poverty?
Ok. I’ve just spent a rather perplexing 20 minutes trying to find good stats for the UK National Lottery – maybe I’m rubbish at Googling or something, but I found a thousand pages willing to tell me that such and such a number hadn’t been drawn for half-a-dozen weeks (thereby proving that there are many people who are prepared to sacrifice rational thought for bizarre superstion), but could I find ONE that gives total number of sales and winners? (Answer: No.) Not even the National Lottery’s own homepage carries these stats(!) (I found some figures, but sales of different ticket-types were aggregated, making them useless).
Not that this counts as much of a cite, but I didn’t find any pages that said “not a lot of people know that there are more winning tickets than chance alone would suggest”.
