Pseudoskepticism and evidence for precognition

I suddenly thought of Shakespeare while driving my car. 5 seconds later the radio show on NPR talks about Shakespeare. I was looking up a word once and the TV mentions an obscure city on some island country. At the same moment, my eyes fall on that same city in the dictionary. This is not coincidence.

I was thinking of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon one day

Sure enough about 2 years later I saw a TV program about the moon landing

Since early in the 20th century, determinism has been junked. Modern physicists (with good reason) view the universe as governed by laws of probability rather than precise deterministic laws.

A belief in precognition requires a belief in some person or persons being able to predict the result of a dice throw under casino conditions.

Really? . . . say a person jumps out of a plane from 40,000 feet - without a parachute - what is the probability that, in response to the effects of gravity, he will shortly meet his demise . . . . . IMO 100% probability is pretty much deterministic. MR:, BTW, pseudoskepticism

Last edited:
Really? . . . say a person jumps out of a plane from 40,000 feet - without a parachute - what is the probability that, in response to the effects of gravity, he will shortly meet his demise . . . . . IMO 100% probability is pretty much deterministic. MR:, BTW, pseudoskepticism

While the prediction of the poor fellows demise may be 100% known

Precognition would require details of
• The depth of the hole he would make
• Which part of his body would contact the ground first
• The coordinates
• The length of time of the fall
Some of these can be calculated however IF IF IF all of the above has already been determined the person should have no problem plucking them from the future

And I don't know HOW such a ability would work but can I ask

Would it be easier to predict the future which is only a couple of minutes away as against predicting some sort of event in 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?

Michael: IMO, I would figure that the smaller the predictive time interval (say femtoseconds vs years) the more 'determinisitic' the event would appear to the primary or any secondary observers. Precognating (is that even a word?) an event at higher and higher temporal interval resolution (shorter and shorter time intervals) would approach simultaneity, and thus precognition would become moot. This all gets back to probability, I guess, as someone has already mentioned, and the shorter the precognitive interval, the more the event becomes probable (and deterministic). For example: I'd need a slightly greater precognative time interval following precognition of the winning Power Ball numbers to give me sufficient time to run to the nearest 7/11 for tickets! (HAHA!)

Michael: IMO, I would figure that the smaller the predictive time interval (say femtoseconds vs years) the more 'determinisitic' the event would appear to the primary or any secondary observers. Precognating (is that even a word?) an event at higher and higher temporal interval resolution (shorter and shorter time intervals) would approach simultaneity, and thus precognition would become moot. This all gets back to probability, I guess, as someone has already mentioned, and the shorter the precognitive interval, the more the event becomes probable (and deterministic). For example: I'd need a slightly greater precognative time interval following precognition of the winning Power Ball numbers to give me sufficient time to run to the nearest 7/11 for tickets! (HAHA!)

Yes

I find it very strange

Soothsayers work in circus tents for low \$s

While the prediction of the poor fellows demise may be 100% known

Precognition would require details of
• The depth of the hole he would make
• Which part of his body would contact the ground first
• The coordinates
• The length of time of the fall
Some of these can be calculated however IF IF IF all of the above has already been determined the person should have no problem plucking them from the future

And I don't know HOW such a ability would work but can I ask

Would it be easier to predict the future which is only a couple of minutes away as against predicting some sort of event in 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?

Yes it's a silly example. Nobody claims it is not possible to make predictions. If that were so, there would be no science.

But the ability to make predictions in many instance does not mean that the universe is deterministic, which was Dinosaur's point. Determinism implies that everything can be determined by calculation from a set of initial conditions specified in enough detail. QM says you can't do that.

Yes it's a silly example. Nobody claims it is not possible to make predictions. If that were so, there would be no science.

But the ability to make predictions in many instance does not mean that the universe is deterministic, which was Dinosaur's point. Determinism implies that everything can be determined by calculation from a set of initial conditions specified in enough detail. QM says you can't do that.

Yes

Yes and

Yes

Was there a 4th yes in there

Oh well

Yes anyway

Only asked as I didn't like to cut and paste a link and run without any note as to context

But it looks like some still believe???????

http://www.globalnetresearch.com/statements.html

Still want to believe?

LOL! I did a search on this "globalnetresearch". It's just a website solely devoted to digging up dirt on Noreen Renier. Something tells me it's not on the level. It's obsessed with destroying her reputation. Maybe it was made by one of the many criminals she helped to get busted.

LOL! I did a search on this "globalnetresearch". It's just a website solely devoted to digging up dirt on Noreen Renier. Something tells me it's not on the level. It's obsessed with destroying her reputation. Maybe it was made by one of the many criminals she helped to get busted.

Seems she has been busted a few times

http://www.globalnetresearch.com/NoreenRenierBankruptcies.html

Seems she couldn't even predict she would go bankrupt and Internal Revenue Service would be interested in her undeclared income

Last edited:
Or so claims the mysterious "globalnetresearch". Rule of thumb: when ya got nothing, just try to poison the well any way you can.

Going to court seems to be a extremely unlikely way just to prove her bunkum claims

Or so claims the mysterious "globalnetresearch". Rule of thumb: when ya got nothing, just try to poison the well any way you can.

Going to court seems to be a extremely unlikely way just to prove her bunkum claims

Going to court seems to be a extremely unlikely way just to prove her bunkum claims

Or so claims "globalnetresearch"..Who knows what BS that weird site is spuing?

Spewing.
Going to court seems to be a extremely unlikely way just to prove her bunkum claims

She seems to have a well-developed track record of deception, certainly.