Asking questions (even dismissive ones) about anecdotal experiences are the first two steps in the scientific method. [en.wikipedia.org]

@kensmile4u -- There is such a thing as a difference between doing science and pseudoscience. Claims for a variety of ESP phenomena have been made for centuries, yet there has never been a successful demonstration of any of them under controlled conditions and, yes, I have heard most of the excuses for this failure to perform.

Regarding the scientific method, observation, means what it says. Observation of a phenomenon upon which we can base our questions. In the case of the paranormal, there has never been a verifiable observation made of the stated phenomena. We get anecdotes, which are neither observation nor evidence. When subjects are scrutinized under controlled circumstances, we observe nothing that is consistent with the anecdotes given. With years of experience and efforts to demonstrate anything akin to ESP and the failure to do so is a pretty strong indicator that serious consideration of the subject is not adequate reason for a scientist to spend his/her time, energy, and money pursuing it. At the moment there is something warranting study, you can rest assured that the community of serious scientists will rise to the cause.

@evidentialist I agree. I've been occupied in the sciences for 30 plus years. Let me know how this experiment fits in your expectations of rising to the cause.
[digitaljournal.com]

@kensmile4u -- Again, another long stretch. QM does not apply at the macro level. A quantum traveling in time does not equate to a brick doing the same. Now, there is research going on now to pin down quantum activity in macro scale objects, but nothing anywhere near as large as a brick. Thousands of times smaller.

Professor Mika Sillanpää of the Department of Applied Physics and O.V. Lounasmaa laboratory at Aalto University is carrying out basic research on micromechanical resonators measured at ultralow temperatures.

Since everything is built with atoms, macroscopic sized objects should, in principle, follow the counterintuitive quantum laws. Quanta are never directly observed, because the quantum waves in sizable objects usually immediately cancel each other out, leaving behind the everyday world. However, if well protected from noise of the surroundings, tangible objects can retain some quantum features. Professor Mika Sillanpää uses sophisticated cryogenic equipment to cool samples close to -273°C. At that temperature, the energies of single vibrational quanta are not excessively disturbed by random motion of atoms due to temperature. This allows them to observe quantum-mechanical behavior in relatively macroscopic objects such as the micromechanical oscillators that they are working with.

In Sillanpää's work, the micromechanical resonators are housed inside a superconducting cavity resonator. When the two quantum resonators are put together, they begin to exchange quanta, and their resonant motion thus becomes amplified. This is very similar to what happens in a guitar, where the string and the guitars' echo chamber resonate at the same frequency, but instead occurring in the realms of quantum physics. Instead of the musician playing with the guitar string, the energy source is provided by a microwave laser.

So the key here is that quantum actions cancel out instantly unless taken in very small samples under specific conditions. I don't even begin to see how any of that applies to someone having ESP of any kind. In one of my novels I got around this problem by using nanobots for transmit and receive functions. They also provided the translation from electrical activity to understandable communication. Exceptionally limited, but ESP of a sort.

@evidentialist Yes there is a lot of good science happening at near absolute zero. I've been involved in photonics, superconductivity, and some other things i'm not at liberty to speak about. Regarding the rational connection between QM and ESP I have attached the abstract of a paper published in 2014 by Professor and Research Psychologist Dr. Markus Maier. The paper is titled "Feeling the future again: Retroactive avoidance of negative stimuli". Here is the abstract on the paper. It will give you insight into how this resarcher relates QM to ESP. "Abstract"
"During the past decades, several theories have been proposed that relate quantum mechanics to information processing in the human mind. These theories predict that the arrow of time has no direction during unconscious processing states. Across 7 experiments, we tested whether masked negative stimuli presented in the future lead to an unconscious avoidance reaction in the presence. Response registration took place about 500 milliseconds before stimulus onset. In the majority of the studies, the predicted retroactive
influence was found. On average, participants were able to unconsciously avoid negative future outcomes(mean ES = 0.07; Combined Bayes factor = 293). These results are in line with similar precognitive avoidance effects recently reported by Daryl Bem in 2011 (Experiment 2). The reported findings are discussed with regard to the proposed quantum model of the mind. We also highlight the limitations of our research.
Keywords: retrocausation, precognition, quantum mind, consciousness, Orch OR model"

I agree that Quantum Science is just a toddler but it theoretically makes precognition possible. Recently there are some credible efforts getting empirical results that demand serious attention. Dr. Daryl Bem is one of those ground breaking researchers.

@kensmile4u Yeah, no one has been able to replicate his results. Whi h derrived from shoddy experimental protocols to begin with. I am quite familiar with him. I stand by my statement.

@Druvius Yes I read how Bem's ideas were demoted in 2011. But he responded with new published work in 2014. You may be interested in the linked article which suggest areas of experimental science that might pierce the veil on this phenomenon. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

@kensmile4u Well, I'll check. Always happy to review new evidence.

That is so true! The inference is undeniable. Now all we need to do is understand and master retrocausality.

Very similar to my own conclusions.

I agree some of the things you mentioned are not science based. But the field of Quantum Science theoretically makes precognition possible. Recently there are some credible efforts getting empirical results that demand serious attention. Dr. Daryl Bem is one of those ground breaking researchers.

Well , here we go. The "rational" mind would actually look at evidence. Not say: these things have to be irrational, because they could not possibly be true. What if they are? I can be quite rational and still hold the thought that all sorts of tings are possible. Telepathy being the simplest of those, and so commonplace that denying it's existence seems .. not very rational if you ask me.

@ZebZaman -- This rational mind does consider evidence. Would you care to provide some real evidence for telepathy? I'd be most interested in seeing it.

@kensmile4u -- First, Dr. Daryl Bem is not a theoretical physicist and I doubt seriously he'd recognize one quantum from the next. So far, no one has been able to reproduce any of his experimental results. Also, all tests and experiments run to date and to the best of my knowledge don't show anything more than what would be expected in random chance.

Please explain how QM gives theoretical credence to precognition.

@evidentialist no, he seem sot be a psychologist. But there are biologists too researching this, thing is, for the hard boiled skeptic, it is totally irrelevant what sort of scientist with which credentials comes up with any evidence for any PSI related things, as soon as he/she does, they cease to be, in your eyes, respectable scientists. So, this debate will never be won by me. No matter what evidence i could quote, quite aside from 100% certain experiences of my own. And others I know.

That is known as anecdotal confirmation bias, @ZebZaman and is not evidence. Any scientist who can demonstrate anything at all in the paranormal realm would be the happiest of Nobel Prize winners. It would be one of the most significant discoveries in human history. Considering that no one has done anything slightly close to creating more than minor interest among a few fringe researchers should be enough to cause substantial doubt in anyone's mind.

@evidentialist I know Bem is a Psychologist. But the study of retrocausality has been around long enough to reach into many areas of research. See the following two links to get theoretical credence. [en.wikipedia.org]
[digitaljournal.com]

@ZebZaman Maybe this will help.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[digitaljournal.com]

I had a precognition that I was going to get into an accident and seconds later every detail of that lucid dream became a reality. Fortunately that has happened only once in my life.

@kensmile4u - That's exactly what I mean - precognition is totally useless as it doesn't change anything.

First: not all can say "we have seen the future" in our dreams. A minority have seen tiny glimpses of the future that seem uncannily accurate. And then there are intuitions where you do change things, and you did NOT see yourself fall down the cliff in heavy fog while out in the snow, because you didn't fall, because you listened to that clear voice in your head that said: STOP here. No further. I know three different such stories from three people, one of them being me.

@kensmile4u I had asked my father once to put on his seatbelt, and put my own on, a few km before we got into a pretty bad crash. Without the belts, ... would have been bad for us. I did not "see" anything coming, just .. asked him to put on his belt. Of course, to the hard boiled skeptic, nothing bu coincidence. it's just when things like that pile up in your life, you start to question the coincidence explanation.

@ZebZaman - I reckon that's called common sense, not intuition. Sorry mate.

@GoldenDoll Don't "Sorry mate" me. Of course, it looks like common sense. But I know how often I told my dad to fasten his seat belts ( never, other than that time) . Of course, it could still be a coincidence or common sense, as the roads were icy that morning. So, the jury could well argue in your favour. But it is by a very long shot not the only such experience I have had myself, ,or some one close I trust not making up stuff. I just used it as an example to show the subtle difference between... precognition and intuition.

@GoldenDoll I agree it seems useless at this point in time. It's only useless because we don't understand it. But that can be said for all knowledge. Once we understand and master this phenomenon our existence will become shockingly different.

Interesting.

Have you given any thought why you don"t and they do? For example are these events tied to a location?

There is a bit of family history for me too. I have had enough such experiences to know it is not imagined.

I had something like that happen just seconds before the event.

scary

Thanks for the article. You might like these links as well. [en.wikipedia.org]
[digitaljournal.com]

I have only had one experience that was a completely accurate precognition. But the number of people who have responded to this question with at least one experience is significant.

You might like my explanation right above yours.

I have only had one.

Not me.

@Sarahroo29 There have been a surprising number of responders to this question who have experienced some form of precognition.

I don't believe in paranormal stuff.

Thanks I'll have to look the post up. Are your predictions 100% accurate? Or is some interpretation required?

Pretty accurate the few I've had.