It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Quantum Theory of Precognition

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
You are missing the whole point about QED. Because future states ARE random it can't be predicted, and thus actually disproves precognition.

A simple explanation for precognitive events is simply that either in a daydreaming/dreaming state, the brain rapidly simulates possible scenarios. Statistically people will experience many "precog" events in their life, because the brain is so good at simulating real life for practices sake.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xelamental
You are missing the whole point about QED. Because future states ARE random it can't be predicted, and thus actually disproves precognition.

A simple explanation for precognitive events is simply that either in a daydreaming/dreaming state, the brain rapidly simulates possible scenarios. Statistically people will experience many "precog" events in their life, because the brain is so good at simulating real life for practices sake.


I believe a brain simulates and creates events from experience (life, reading, imagination). This is the stuff dreams and nightmares are made of, and is well-documented in scientific litreature.

To blithely write-off precognition as the sum of the above is to ignore the actual result of a precognitive vision.
The ability to predict conversations, faces, events that have no bearing on the subjects reality consistently and measurably cast doubt on your assertion that all precognition is merely the brain's simulation of a potential real-life event.

The brain can only process based on input. If the output of the brain in form of a vision has no valid input, then the vision should be seen as precognitive.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember

Originally posted by xelamental
You are missing the whole point about QED. Because future states ARE random it can't be predicted, and thus actually disproves precognition.

A simple explanation for precognitive events is simply that either in a daydreaming/dreaming state, the brain rapidly simulates possible scenarios. Statistically people will experience many "precog" events in their life, because the brain is so good at simulating real life for practices sake.


I believe a brain simulates and creates events from experience (life, reading, imagination). This is the stuff dreams and nightmares are made of, and is well-documented in scientific litreature.

To blithely write-off precognition as the sum of the above is to ignore the actual result of a precognitive vision.
The ability to predict conversations, faces, events that have no bearing on the subjects reality consistently and measurably cast doubt on your assertion that all precognition is merely the brain's simulation of a potential real-life event.

The brain can only process based on input. If the output of the brain in form of a vision has no valid input, then the vision should be seen as precognitive.


That's completely illogical. You admit that the brain is a great simulator, which is backed up in the research. We are thought to dream upwards of 400x per night, all of them being somewhat based on the sum of our experience and the brains predictions of what's could be coming up.

Are you saying that it's impossible to dream about something (made up) and when you experience it, remember that dream? The thing is, our brain takes in FAR more information than we realise. You know how you drive somewhere, and notice something that you think is new, but it's actually been there for years? Well your brain actually did see everything, but you brain filters it out from your conscious thought.

Given two scenarios, 1) precognition, for which there is no evidence at all, and 2) where it's simply a biased rememberance of 1 of hundreds of thousands of brain simulations, which we know happens, then you have to side with 2.

The fact is there is a completely scientifically plausible explanation for "precognition". There's no reason to make up magic powers. It's simply the person who experienced it is mistaken, nothing more.

Why invent "magic" when there is a reasonable explanation for something?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaalphanovember
 


Also. Your last sentence made no sense. Are you saying that you can't imagine something you haven't experienced? Please explain fiction.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by xelamental
 


No, no ... I understand what you are saying, however, I dispute the rational scientific explanation that a vision (especially a lucid vision - this is very important) is merely a dream, and writing it off as coincidence when the events come true.

If everyone's brains are processing and potentially offering up future events whilst dreaming (during actual dream state), then the number of positive ocurring precognitive visions should be much higher simply by using the heads or tails method of randomness.

This is not necesarily magic - I am willing to concede that in an infinite number of future events based on an infinite number of possibilities may potentially lead to a small amount of correct guesses.

However, explain the high positive hit ratio that some people occasionally have? Pure luck? A winning streak?
Why then does this happen to a smaller group of people on a more frequent basis. Should not the result be spread out of the population sample over time?

Interesting feedback ... keep them coming, you are making me think.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by xelamental
reply to post by deltaalphanovember
 


Also. Your last sentence made no sense. Are you saying that you can't imagine something you haven't experienced? Please explain fiction.


It's a philosophical theory that I subscribe to: until proven otherwise, all visions/imagination/dreams could be seen as precognitive.

Our experience and common sense tells us the brain processes information retrospectively. It cannnot process what it has not experienced.
Even imagination is based on experience.

If the brain is able to process information that leads to an unimaginable conclusion, then the experience is precognitive - even when the result is negative.

The Result is one of many possible futures, that much you have conceded. The actual Result may also cause the Event to no longer be a Possibility simply because of the effect of the Heisenberg Principle.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
reply to post by xelamental
 


No, no ... I understand what you are saying, however, I dispute the rational scientific explanation that a vision (especially a lucid vision - this is very important) is merely a dream, and writing it off as coincidence when the events come true.

If everyone's brains are processing and potentially offering up future events whilst dreaming (during actual dream state), then the number of positive ocurring precognitive visions should be much higher simply by using the heads or tails method of randomness.

This is not necesarily magic - I am willing to concede that in an infinite number of future events based on an infinite number of possibilities may potentially lead to a small amount of correct guesses.

However, explain the high positive hit ratio that some people occasionally have? Pure luck? A winning streak?
Why then does this happen to a smaller group of people on a more frequent basis. Should not the result be spread out of the population sample over time?

Interesting feedback ... keep them coming, you are making me think.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood's_law

Note, on average you would expect a 1/1000000 event to happen once per month. But, given 6 billion people and the normal distribution a high proportion of people will see many more than that. 6 billion people means a large number 7 standard deviations from the mean.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by xelamental] - Links

[edit on 15-10-2009 by xelamental]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by xelamental
 


Ok ...

1. You are arguing that 6 billion brains are "potentially" spewing out 6 billion * 400 possible futures a night and this is normal.

Due to the limitations of the above number, positively predicting the infinite future would be close to zero because of the signal to noise ratio.

I am of average intelligense but it seems to me that based on the above, the odds of a human having one correct prediction in his life would be too low to even bother calculating.
The fact that humans can (based only on personal experience) have multiple positives in a row seems to point to another undiscovered factor.

My head hurts even thinking about it.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
1. You are arguing that 6 billion brains are "potentially" spewing out 6 billion * 400 possible futures a night and this is normal.

Yes. That's likely on the low end.



Due to the limitations of the above number, positively predicting the infinite future would be close to zero because of the signal to noise ratio.


Given our brains are TRYING to predict the future, by practicing things the brain deems relevant, and that the events of tomorrow are somewhat predictable (e.g. 99% ill be working, 50% rain, etc) I think you overstate the numbers a little.



I am of average intelligense but it seems to me that based on the above, the odds of a human having one correct prediction in his life would be too low to even bother calculating.

Why not do the calculation then comment on the odds. To do otherwise just feeds your own cognitive bias.



The fact that humans can (based only on personal experience) have multiple positives in a row seems to point to another undiscovered factor.
My head hurts even thinking about it.

This undiscovered factor is called chance. Or perhaps you are very good at predicting!

If it were an "undiscovered factor" it would be reliable, and therefore testable. But I'm guessing it's not.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
This came up in a google search and I also am along the lines of explaining precognition through quantum mechanics and digital physics.

Here is my article entitled, "The Anatomy of a Precognitive Dream" on ATS.

Glad to see another fellow ATSer with a similar line of thinking.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Very interesting ... there is definitely something in this. Your post makes some excellent points.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join