Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism

I'm assuming Q exists outside our timeline. He can witness the entirety of our timeline because time in his dimension operates differently. I guess it'd be something similar to Aasimov's "Eternals." Of course, we'll never know if our paranormal cause wasn't the cause of some time traveler or a Q-like entity. This is why I don't think long about things like this. It's too much of a headache to think about and no one has all the facts. Even the supernatural may have a logical and natural explanation if we knew more about our Universe and the hypothetical multi-Verse. The problem is humans aren't inherently logical. By logical thinking, of course it would be silly to actually believe in fortune-telling, but humans are irrational. Many times, people will do things that work directly against their self-interest and that's probably a consequence of our evolution. Humans aren't naturally long term thinkers. Just look at human history and you'll see how often short-sighted people tend to be.

I am not claiming that science has exclusive hold over any particualr word at all. I am asking people who uses terminology like "force", "energy" and "field" in the context of the paranormal to explain what they actually mean by these words. If they are not using the word in the scientific sense that the context all too often unjustifiably implies then what exactly do they mean? For example this sort of thing is prevalent and typical: I mean seriously what the fuck is he talking about? There are huge industries dedicated to this claptrap and armies of believers. But does anyone know what these people are actually saying? Do they themselves know what they mean by "fields of energy" in this context? But I am not talking about monks, Wiccans or anybody else who is not claiming any sort of pseudoscientific basis for their beliefs. I am fairly unconvinced that they can actually define what they mean by the terms they are using either. I would also argue that any claims they may make about the ability to see the future violate causality and the laws of physics as we understand them. But I am also relatively unconcerned by how they describe their "magic" if that is what they believe it is.I am talking about those advocates of the mystical and paranormal who attempt to justify the things that they claim are real by invoking ill understood aspects of modern science and layering them with pseudoscience to justify subjective belief in unevidenced phenomenon. Again the following sort of thing is prevalent and typical and directly relevant to the topic at hand - Precognition: Studies of the paranormal, tales of "psychic energy", conflations between Eastern forms of mysticism and modern physics are full of examples of scientific terminology and concepts being abused. So lets leave the Wiccans out of this and concentrate on those that indisputably are perpetrating this brand of nonsense.

Then the moment he enters it or interferes in any way to pass information to Joe he immediately changes the timeline he was originally watching by causing it to branch off in a new direction from the point of interference.And thus the things he tells Joe about the futrure in the previously observed timeline do not necessarily apply to the one he has now created by means of his intervenion. I am not disputing that people do believe in irrational things. I am asking whether or not holding such beliefs amounts to denial of the laws of physics as we understand them to be. Is holding simultaneous belief in both precognitive divination of any sort and the causal laws of physics logically contradictory?

Not to the layperson simply because the layperson has no conception of why precognition contradicts the causal laws of physics and because the layperson is not sitting there thinking about it.You and I may find the topic fascinating to discuss, but for the average person, it's not something to consider. Explain it to them, and they may not be interested or even understand what you are saying. It isn't because they are stupid, but because those are ideas that they don't regularly encounter in their daily lives. Education, then, is the start to dispel such arcane beliefs. Still, you can't get rid of them because there will be people who are willfully ignorant. I may be one of them, after all, I am not atheist despite my acceptance of natural explanations about the real world.I suppose, thinking about science as a study of causality, then yes, precognition probably contradicts the laws of physics. Having thought about it, I can honestly say that I will forget about it because I never really accepted precognition anyway. I will admit the guilty pleasure of having my future told, but beyond that, I don't believe in the predictions. So my life doesn't change with this understanding. Sorry to disappoint you.

Don't dismiss the mystical or paranormal out of hand immediately. Check to see if something like that is falsifiable first.I am reminded of acupuncture when it first arrived from China to the US. It was dismissed by the medical community as crackpot theories precisely because it was based in mystical understandings of the human body - the concept of qi and the directing and redirecting of the flow of energy to induce healing. But acupuncture, for all its mystical underpinnings, is falsifiable and the AMA has stated that further research is need to study its efficacy. I wouldn't recommend that you go to your local acupuncturist or forgo modern medicine, but keep in mind that some things that may seem mystical or paranormal at first can be be subjected to the scientific method and studied.That's why we find some scientists are studying the mystical effects of herbs because we understand now that there are herbs out there that, while natives may claim has mystical properties, might actually work well because of their unique chemical properties. Those herbs can be tested for their efficacy, bringing science to mystical claims.

The interesting thing is wondering whether we're accurately understanding QM. For instance, we can tell how much of a radioactive element will decay in a given time, but we can't predict with any accuracy the actual atoms that will decay. This is a standard part of QM, stating that it's probabilistic, but not deterministic. Leaving aside the fact that maybe there is some underlying reason for atom X decaying while atom Y doesn't...but could we, given enough information, make probabilistic predictions about the futre, given enough knowledge?We may not be able to know exactly what people are going to do what, but we could predict, with some accuracy, the probability of certain events happening. As someone mentioned above, in the Foundation series, Asimov had Harry Seldon basically use people like radioactive atoms. He could determine what a crowd would do, but he couldn't tell you who in the crowd would do what.

Not necessarily. If we're allowing the possibility of a Q-like being, and it's ability to exist outside our timeline and yet see into it, we have to allow the possibility that he sees into our timeline and sees his actions and their effects, meaning that the minute he steps into our timeline, he can effectively see his own timeline, albeit for only the amount of time he is inside it.This would imply not only do we have no free will, but neither does he. It could lead to a timeline within a timeline thing where our timeline moves along, but is part of a larger timeline, which may or may not have even more superior beings "outside" of it, watching what's going on.

I am not interested in whether they know it is contradictory I am simply interested in establishing whether it is contradictory. I am not disappointed at all. People are free to believe whatever they want. Even if it is contradictory. Even if they realise it is contradictory. I would urge people to be honest with themselves but beyond that I really don't care what they believe. This is a debate board however............ Well exactly. And that is primarily what I am trying to do.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am not dismissing anything out of hand. I am all for testing any claim. I am asking in this thread whether or not precognition is consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them to be. I am asking if Kaku is right when he says: I am also taking this opportunity to rail against those paranormal apologetics who cite a pseudo version of the very same modern physics that is being contradicted by precognition. In particular those charlatans riding on the success and authority of genuine science through the use of bogus and conflationary terminology.

A statistical approach to human behaviour patterns. Which is why this, in principle at least, is no more precognition in the paranormal sense than is weather forecasting. Tarot card reading (for example) is not about analysing empirical evidence and making predictions based on that evidence. It is (apparently) about utilising the undefinable "energy" or "life-force" of the subject through some ambiguous mystical aspect of the Tarot cards to tell them about their future. It contradicts causality as we know it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yep I thought of this possibility too. It is intriguing to think that even the external to time "god" like entity is devoid of freewill in this scenario.I need to respond to Mod's post above properly but the whole timeline thing is in danger of branching this thread off in parallel topics that have little to do with precognition, the paranormal or the abuse of quantum theory in the form of quantum mysticism to justify such claims.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The only way actual precognition works is if something comes back in time and somehow affects the "seer's" mind/brain. If there's no contra-time movement, then I don't see how it could even work.I agree, it flies in the face of all we think we know, and considering what we've accomplished with what we think we know, I think we know quite a bit.

Well according to Kaku you have predicted a future. If I have understood correctly. Kaku essentially invokes the many worlds interpretation of QM along with the notion of timelines in order to distinguish between time travel and precognition. With regard to time travel he explains the same idea of a connecting wormhole that you mention (along with some of the technical challenges in costructing such a thing) and then talks about resolving things like the grandfather paradox in terms of branching timelines and parallel universes.So in your example the person travelling to 2010 and reading the newspaper would see a future. Presumably a future that was not the product of someone in 2009 having knowledge of 2010. So when our traveller returns to 2009 with this knowledge of 2010 the universe branches off from the course he saw and there are no guarantees at all that the future events he witnessed will ever take place in this new timeline. Precognition of this sort is ultimately no more reliable than guessing from amongst all the possible universes.With regard to precognition of the type under discussion in this thread Kaku says the following: Although he doesn't say so explicitly, as no mention of timelines is made in the section on precognition, it seems he is talking about seeing the future portion of a single specific timeline. The future that will happen. Essentailly precognition without wormholes or related time travel possibilities as claimed by paranormalists today. Fantastic. I love this sort of thing. I am going to go and read these links properly.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is worth noting that of all the areas covered in Kaku's book "The Physics of the Impossible" only precognition and perpetual motion machines were listed as totally contravening the known laws of physics. This is what Kaku has to say on precognition: So those who advocate precognition as real are, according to Kaku and presumably the scientific consensus on this matter, contradicting causality and the very foundations of science as we understand it to be. Always dangerous to rule anything out entirely. But the sort of paradigm shift required to overturn causality would be like nothing ever before and would undermine just about the whole of science and human knowledge in the process.

The thing is, as soon as you start imagining the possibility of a Q-like being, you're already imagining a universe that is not like the universe we have knowledge about around us (that is, as far as we know, no Q-like being exists or can exist).Therefore, you can set up whatever rules you like for this new imaginary universe to see "what might be possible" within such an idea.Now the questions of "what is possible for a Q-like being..." all become directly dependent on the rules you set up for the universe that would hold such a Q-like being. Therefore, the answer for all these "what is possible for a Q-like being..." questions is the simple "whatever was defined as possible while creating the imaginary Q-like being in it's imaginary universe."That is, unless you are able to specify all the rules of the universe and Q-like being you are thinking about in your imagination, it isn't really fair to ask others what they think such a Q-like being would be capable of. That is, their imaginary Q-like being rules and imaginary Q-like universe may be slightly different from what you're understanding is.Straggler and I got into a very similar impasse while trying to "talk sensible" about time travel, prophecy, and free will*. The thing is, such things are inherently imaginary (as far as we know, anyway). Therefore, any talking of such inherently imgainary ideas requires you to imagine a universe with certain rules that do not necessarily exist within our current universe (and may even contradict some rules of our universe). Without clearly specifying exactly the rules your imaginary idea entails (something I was unable to convey in my discussion with Straggler) the other party is free to use whatever imagination they would like. The two of you also may not agree on which "inherent rules of our real universe" carry over and are "untouchable" within the imaginary universes you're both thinking of.Such confusion can lead to an impossibility of common ground on which to have an actual "sensible talk" about imaginary concepts.*Thread: Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?
Message 1