Precognition in a deterministic universe

But next February, you will say you knew it all along, eh?

I know people think I am a nutcase, but that doesn't matter. I wanted to get word out - sceptics have lost on this one. I was one myself. We live in a very strange world, and I see no reason why the universe would prohibit future insight, given all the other marvelous displays at it's disposal.

Determinism is a fact. The only peculiar fact is how the precognition insights must therefore be determined as well. I thus reject any forced testing method, because of this, since it all had to be predetermined in the first place.

Upon what basis do you claim that determinism is a fact? Your thesis is so full of holes it would embarrass a Swiss cheese.

I already adressed this question; relativity fits best in a deterministic universe.

Good for you mate..
"The great secret of the successful fool is that he's no fool at all" - Isaac Asimov
PS-My dad used to say I was nutty but he was far nuttier than me, I saw him peeing up the side of our neighburs house after dark once

Yes...it also takes good acting skills, and stage persona. It is viewed as most as part of the entertainment industry....just like the Televangelists.....Now, that where the true money is.

It seems to me that Determinism is problematical to the extent that it rests on a questionable notion of causality. It assumes at at a writ large or cosmic level that "causes" and "effects" are concrete discreet entities. I do not see causes and effects, I think them as components of an explanatory model. I see an event or condition and ask what generated it. That is thinking of the thing to be explained as an "effect" and generated by a preexisting "cause". We even reverse the temporal sequence of the two. We actually see the "effect" first and look for the "cause" after, but our explanatory model necessarily treats the "cause" as antecedent to the "effect,"
Now DETERMINISM describes the universe as consisting of these reified constructs (cause and effect), whereas they are no more than the beginning- points and end-points of continua, like the beginning and end of a novel. The beginning is, more or less, necessary for the existence of the end, but it is not its cause. If this were so, every event is the product of all its (necessary and efficient) antecedent related events/conditions, and part of the "causal" environment of future events. But is this what is meant by determinism? I hope not: that would amount to pre-determinism whilch is blatantly absurd.

You didn't establish that as fact, you just made the claim without substantiation--which is what we've got for all of your claims here--it's called ipse dixit. Apparently we are to believe you just because you say so. I'll pass on that.

Determinism and causality are not synonymous. Read up. Causality only claim that every event is caused by another event. Not if the causing was predetermined to be precisely what we observed (perhaps there was a variable of possible cause-effect configurations)...

The unambigious path is however the type of determinism I adhere to. This universe could be a quantum casino, but without a universal time for all events to order under, the randomness is purely epistemological - random "apperance". Things can in principle be uncasued, but fully determined in a timeless universe. Unless you concider "previous event" in a historical time line, to be a cause...

As physicist lawrence Krauss put it: The universe behaves as if it's indeterministic - but the actual mathematical models, and corresponding predictions are deterministic. All quantum states evolve deterministically.

If you treat the wave function as reality - then the universe truly is deterministic, regardless of causality.

Why not pay a visit to your local casino or race track?

You could get rich!

I wish this fantasy could be true but...it's been a long time since I believed in magical thinking....I was a small child then with an under developed mind....normal for my age at the time.

I never claimed to be psychic. And I have already explaned how any forced method is prohibited.

My Hell's angel brother-in-law was a fairly heavy gambler, and whenever he was about to go to the bookies to put bets on the horses, he'd ask the rest of the family if we'd like to have a flutter too.
My mother and me said yes just for fun, and I always did it scientifically by picking up the paper to see what all the different tipsters were saying, then I placed my bet accordingly smack on the nose.
If I remember correctly, my nags won the Grand National twice and the Derby once, and I also did okay in other races, winning more than losing.
Naturally this miffed my bro-in-law who before that had liked to think he was the horse racing "expert" in the family.
I only put modest bets on, and only on favourites or near-favourites, so I never won big.
"Huh, you'll never get rich backing favourites!" he taunted me with, but I shamed him by replying - "At least I'm not losing any money like you're always doing!"

I know a person who regularly votes on large lotteries. He assures me that you can't win if you don't bet. I agreed that that was a truism, but on its other side you can't lose if you don't bet. He's a loser becasue he bets regularly; another fellow bets only rarely because, he says, it's fun. He never wins but he's convinced he gets his money's worth. I agree.

Yeah everybody should bet with their brain first and their money second, but most punters like my dumb bro-in-law are always backing outsiders in the hope of getting a big win, which rarely rarely happens.
He was hopeless at roulette too, we had a small family roulette game and he used to simply toss his chips randomly onto the mat without rhyme or reason, hoping they'd land on a winning number at long odds for a big spectacular win!
I tried explaining you have to play with your brain but he couldn't understand and wouldn't admit it.
Needless to say, I beat his socks off by placing a string of low odds bets which had a good chance of coming up, and by the end of the evening I'd often built up a tidy little sum of winnings..

IMO 89, the only logical explanation for a predetermined universe with psychics who can actually predict the future is if everything has already happened. As in reality is like a movie, with a beginning and an end, which replays itself out. So once this universe dies, explodes, whatever; it will instantly begin again and play out exactly the same way. To me, that's the logical way anything could actually be predetermined. Something must make it predeterminable. Unfortunately that means I've responded to this post with this same answer a countless number of times and will so forever.

Are you familiar with Nietzsche's notion of the Eternal Recurrence in which everything will be endlessly repeated exactly the same?

Some Bible passages hint that the past, present and future tense might be all rolled into one-

Jesus said -"Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58)
Jesus said -“Father..you loved me before the creation of the world" (John 17:24)
Jesus said- “If those days [end of world] had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened" (Matt 24:22)

No I haven't JL, but I'll brush up on it. Thanks

There are zillions of sci-fi movies and TV shows where people are trapped in "time loops", like this Twilight Zone episode where a guy is on an ocean liner but gets the overwhelming impression he's lived through it all before-