Post No. 3,179 - Precognition and working with time

Back in 2010, I wrote a post about a study which seemed to provide scientific evidence that, as I termed it then, the future can be predicted (which is precognition).   The post details are   “Post No. 172 - Scientific proof that the future can be predicted?”   https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/11/scientific-proof-that-future-can-be.html       

Now, in the course of reading Mitch  Horowitz’s   “Practical Magick: Ancient Tradition and Modern Practice” (pub. Gildan Media LLC, 2025,   ISBN 978-1-7225-2781-5;   Kobo,  Barnes & Noble,   Readings,   Apple Books,   Amazon),   I found that the study had resulted in a scientific paper, and that there had been further research and/or reactions. 

From that book:  

“After a long and distinguished research career, Bem suffered unprecedented professional and media evisceration when his 2011 paper in a scholarly journal detailed a decade of clinical evidence for precognition and retrocausality, in which future events cognitively impact present ones.* ”

 * “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect” by Daryl J. Bem, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, Vol. 100, No. 3 

... 

“Within a year of Bem’s publication, a trio of professional skeptics published a rejoinder. Playing off of Bem’s “Feeling the Future,” their paper sported the media-friendly title, “Failing the Future.”* The skeptics reran Bem’s ninth experiment. They wrote in their abstract: “Nine recently reported parapsychological experiments appear to support the existence of precognition. We describe three pre-registered independent attempts to exactly replicate one of these experiments, ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’, which examines whether performance on a memory test can be influenced by a post-test exercise. All three replication attempts failed to produce significant effects . . . and thus do not support the existence of psychic ability.” The authors omitted a critical detail from their own database. By deadline, they possessed two independent studies that replicated Bem’s results. They made no mention of the opposing studies despite their own preset ground rules for doing so.” 

... 

“A decade on, however, the unthinkable occurred: Bem’s findings were widely replicated and proven confirmatory in a large-scale meta-analysis. ** ”

 ** “REVISED: Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events” [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] by Daryl Bem, Patrizio E. Tressoldi, Thomas Rabeyron, Michael Duggan, first published: 30 Oct 2015, latest published: 29 Jan 2016, last updated: 23 Jul 2020, F1000Research 

... 

“In short, I continued, there exists an entirely real prospect that what you do in the future, i.e., following a given event, may improve your cognition and performance during the event itself. Referencing Bem’s study, I noted that the clinician supplied recent, juried, and replicated data to support a retrocausal effect in cognition. As demonstrated in his lab experiments—and confirmed in largescale meta-analysis—future actions benefit present cognition.”  

The implications of this are likely significant. I’m not going to try to write about those now, but I am going to start thinking about this. 

 

PS - from a recent news/reflections post of mine, and providing a different take on time:   “Model Suggests Time Has 3 Dimensions and Makes Intriguing Predictions”   https://youtu.be/yjcNpGNu-Q8    

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

• http://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2014/05/esp-extrasensory-perception.html   
• https://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2023/09/nonphysical.html    

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider: 

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also other options. 

Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here. 

(Gnwmythr is pronounced new-MYTH-ear)  

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).

#PsychicABetterWorld   and  

Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2025     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/